Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apollo 13 Mission Manual Pages To Be Auctioned

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the we-have-a-problem dept.

NASA 96

astroengine writes "On April 13 — the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 accident — Bonhams in New York City will auction off pages from the Apollo 13 mission manual, with handwritten notes by flight commander Jim Lovell. I'm thinking the chances of actually outbidding a rich space enthusiast are slim to none, but having a chance at owning a piece of spaceflight history should be popular nonetheless." Here is an item listing page at Bonhams for one of those pages, which, as Gizmodo notes, saved three astronauts' lives.

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Houston we have a problem (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759760)

... just use ducktape!

Re:Houston we have a problem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31759790)

hahahaha ducktape hahaha, you dumb uncreative programmer.

Re:Houston we have a problem (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759852)

Quack, quack bitch.

Re:Houston we have a problem (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760142)

With a little exposure to the real world (or a short trip to Google Images) one finds that there is a brand called "Duck Tape"
http://blog.cleveland.com/business_impact/2009/06/large_duck-tape.jpg [cleveland.com]

Re:Houston we have a problem (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760210)

Yes, but was there in 1970? I've looked at the 'Duck Tape' advertising campaign, and it looks a lot to me like a company trying to convert 'the public meme' over from a generic term (duct Tape) to something they've trademarked.

That said, I've actually used duct tape to seal off a duct.

Re:Houston we have a problem (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760940)

The problem is, if the duct actually carries hot air, the tape will fall off pretty quickly.

Re:Houston we have a problem (1)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31762418)

Actually there is evidence that it was duck tape first and when it started being used on ducts the name changed. Of course, HVAC ducts is one of the only things I wouldn't use duct tape on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape#Etymology [wikipedia.org]

Re:Houston we have a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31759914)

You tell'em!

Reazl gzeekzs zusze szuper glue!

Iz gotz my pnzky stuckz to myz 'z'z key!

Re:Houston we have a problem (4, Informative)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760876)

Actually - they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape#Usage_in_spaceflight [wikipedia.org]

NASA engineers and astronauts have used duct tape in the course of their work, including in some emergency situations. One such usage occurred in 1970, when the square carbon dioxide filters from Apollo 13's failed command module had to be modified to fit round receptacles in the lunar module, which was being used as a lifeboat after an explosion en route to the moon. A workaround was made using duct tape and other items on board Apollo 13, with the ground crew relaying directions to the spacecraft and its crew. The lunar module CO2 scrubbers started working again, saving the lives of the three astronauts on board.

Ed Smylie, who designed the scrubber modification in just two days, said later that he knew the problem was solvable when it was confirmed that duct tape was on the spacecraft: "I felt like we were home free", he said in 2005. "One thing a Southern boy will never say is, 'I don't think duct tape will fix it.'"[3]

Re:Houston we have a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31762158)

I wonder when an African country is going to put a man in space?

Or even a satellite?

Or even build a plane?

Or a car?

Or a bicycle?

Hmm....

when an African country is going to put a man in s (1)

Geotopia (692701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31773396)

I'm sorry but that sounds like a racist comment. Like you really wanted to say "How about sending a Kenyan out into space".

Or "Let's put a Kenyan in charge of our Space Program and see what happens."

You, sir, indulge in way too much unfounded conspiracy and idle fantasy!

Next thing you're going to tell me we've never been to the moon (which is really going to hamper bidding on the auction for the Apollo 13 note books). I mean just because we haven't been back, let alone even left sub-orbital altitudes for like 30+ years when it seemed like child's play back in the 1960's - oh, wait, that's more like 40+ years ago - anyway, these highly technical endeavors, like building computers and such, they're more difficult to do now, cost a lot more, and with that war on poverty, er drugs, er terror, er, climate change, er, what are we warring on right now? Even if my iPhone has 10X the memory capacity and computing power* of all of the 1969 Houston Space Center and Cape Canaveral combined, have you seen how tall those Saturn Rockets were? I think you forget the challenges we faced back in the 1960s, the Cold War, which took 20 years to win it too, not to mention the costs of an imaginary "Star Wars" program in the 1980s, that was supposed to shoot down ICBMs from space using Ion Cannons.

And so what if we STILL can't reliably shoot down inbound missiles and what the hell is an ion cannon, anyway? Sorry, I'm losing it, I'm just getting nostalgic for those days of Gene Rodenberry and the "Final Frontier". Glad I didn't pursue a career as an Astronaut... or as a climatologist, turns out first, the ice age scheduled for the year 2000 didn't show up, and now everyone gets all testy when you fudge a few numbers to get the graph to line up according to modeled projections. I was going to pursue a career in Medicine, but "evil doctors" are either getting sued into bankruptcy, or if they survive all the malpractice tort, a zealous congress will cap their salaries soon enough. Okay, I actually didn't have the brains for Med School, so I did my undergraduate work in pre-law.

Attended Occidental, though it wasn't until long after tossing my graduation cap (not much of a cap, just a piece of cardboard sewn to a yarmulke) in the air that I realized the spelling with an "O" wasn't just a typo when the school was chartered. I thought it was "Accidental College", else how did a schlub like me get in. Actually, I never showed up for class (sat in my friend's dorm room smoking fags - that's English for "cigarettes" and other leafy and incendiary tubular oral pacifiers, if I may be so dubious), so now I'm wondering how I ever got OUT of Accidental, er, Occidental.

Which leads to the much bigger mystery, how did I ever get into Columbia!? (Chuckle, as a foreign student, of course! Chuckle, they had a quota for minorities and a passport from any third world nation, like, I don't know, um, say, Indonesia, could really help you get in back in the 1980s). So, how'd I get into Harvard, hell, I was too stoned to remember, but I graduated Magme Cum Laud (which is Latin for "Invoking Loud Ecstatic Vocalizations", but I totally skipped out on both my Latin and Constitutional Law classes, so I could be wrong on that... and a lot of things.) Now, where did Grandma Whitey hide my documents,I've got to make sure they are kept safe.

ANYWAY, don't be such a smug racist type, you know we're past that, right?

*The Apollo Guidance Computer consisted of 4100 integrated circuits (each with only one NOR gate) with wire-wrap interconnects, boasting 4K of RAM and 72K of programmed ROM running at a whopping 85kHz accessing 4 registers. Apple's cheapest current iPhone in comparison, has 16GB of Random Access Memory including a portion for the OS on a 600MHz ARM processor with 13.8 Million Transistors. Oh, and it has a built-in accelerometer. That's 3,365x transistors running 7000x cycles faster with access to 4 MILLION times as much storage. So, I'm thinking, as long as Steve let's me upload it to the App Store, putting a "Lunar Lander" on the iPhone!

Who is selling and why? (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759772)

Whoever it is selling this deserves a lot of pity. Whether it be NASA who needs the money or an old NASA employee (maybe astronaut?) who needs the money or an old collector who needs the money or the estate of an old collector or NASA employee that needs to liquidate it, there really must be a sad story behind the selling of an item that belongs in a museum.

Re:Who is selling and why? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760488)

The museums can participate in the auction, too.

Re:Who is selling and why? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761330)

It would be cool if someone could scan them, and then put them online. For the collector, having the original would still be worth something.

Re:Who is selling and why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31761870)

That cross belongs in a museum!

SO DO YOU!

The Jig is Up! (1)

Geotopia (692701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31774920)

"Whoever it is selling this deserves a lot of pity"

or maybe the jig is up and he wants to unload the bundle while it's still worth something. Nyuk, nyuk (just making fun of the tin-foil crowd)

Here's a question for all the lunar landing conspiracists (you see, those that indulge in conspiracy are really racists - "conspiRACISTs")...

You know the original tape recording of the lunar landing, you know, the one they found in Australia? And I don't mean the 1967 "Simulation Footage", I mean the real footage that was recorded along with the telemetry data, I thought it was lost but found, and so I've been waiting around for it to show up on YouTube. Of course, I shouldn't get my expectations up too much, I remember watching the interlaced JPEG of the Lunar Landing Site from Hubble download on my browser window expecting to see vivid outlines of the flag and the base of the Eagle, but found myself straining at fuzzy shadows, but I digress...

Here's where we were in 2006, according to NPR:

"The original lunar footage did get recorded -- onto 14-inch spools of magnetic tape, along with telemetry data. And by 1970, the tapes had made their way to a giant government facility known as the National Records Center in Suitland, Md. Soon after that, records show that NASA brought the tapes to Goddard for "permanent retention."

A Race Against Time

Fast forward to April 2002. Someone who'd worked at one of the Australian tracking stations finds a tape in his garage. He thinks it's a copy he made of the original, high-quality footage. It goes to Building 25 at Goddard Space Flight Center, which houses the Data Evaluation Lab. This lab is full of giant blue cabinets that hold 40-year-old playback machines.

"This is equipment that would process any tapes we find of the original television," says Nafzger, who adds that this lab is the only place left that can play NASA tapes from the Apollo era.

It turned out, the Australian tape wasn't the moonwalk; it was a simulation from 1967. But it made Nafzger and others keen to find the originals."

Now, I know what the conspiracy nuts are thinking, WHY, Oh, Why would some simulation footage be found in Australia!? We expect to find the REAL footage in Australia from whence some of the telecast was received and relayed, but simulation footage? But don't put on your foil hats just yet, because even though you're thinking, "it was all simulation footage, so whether it was 1969 simulation footage or 1967 simulation footage, it was ALL simulated." Not so, you have to remember that Jim Lovell's brother-in-law's second cousin was a British ex-pat living in Jakarta at the time, and somehow the 1967 footage ended up in his luggage, which knowing 1960's lack of variety in the Samsonite line could easily have been swapped for his brother-in-law's cousin's cousin's luggage and then let's get together in Sydney, put some shrimps on the bar-b, yada, yada, yada, and it's obvious, this 1967 reel is going to end up in some garage Down Under.

Anyway, it's only the most frequently referenced achievement in human history, "we can put a man on the moon but we can't make a tea bag that's good for a second batch", so what do we need to keep the footage for, it's burned into our memory cells like the image of Jesus in that piece of toast that guy in Topeka has kept under glass since 1973.

PDF version from the pirate bay (0)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759784)

Come on dude this is slashdot. If it can't be read on an iPad or Kindle, it's not worth bidding on;-)

The wrong one. (1)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759794)

Why are they selling the wrong one?

Even better (5, Informative)

Amiralul (1164423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759802)

Every Level 9 visitor of Johnson Space Center can hold in his hands the (original) Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Operation Plan, probably used and touched by Gene Krantz and others, while visiting the historical Apollo mission control room. It's on the left side of the room, stockpiled with other various files.

Re:Even better (1)

shogun (657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761946)

Could you please define 'Level 9 visitor'? It just sounds like something that doesn't cover everyone....

Re:Even better (1)

Amiralul (1164423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31762042)

En contraire, it covers anyone who is willing to spend 85$ for the ticket. I'm telling you, it's fully worth it! Details, here: http://www.spacecenter.org/Prices.html [spacecenter.org]

Re:Even better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31762746)

You can grind to level 9 in a half hour or so.

Why are these not being given to a Museum? (5, Insightful)

vtechpilot (468543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759818)

Gee if only we had a government body charged with the preservation of important historical documents. Oh wait! We do! [archives.gov] I don't understand why these items aren't going to the National Archives. Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything. The Smithsonian Institution would be a better home than some private collection.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760030)

well, when it's in private collection it is still possible to negotiate with the owner to look at it when necessary, probably for a fee.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (0, Flamebait)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760038)

All that museum has to do is outbid that private collector. If they can't do that, then they must not have been a better place for those documents. I tire of these vapid arguments for the public good. If you want museums to be able to outbid collectors for stuff like this, then give the museums money for the purpose. At least now, it's likely that the documents will be preserved for the future rather than end up in a dumpster (which is what is happening too often with NASA documents at NASA's official library in its headquarters).

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (2, Insightful)

trurl7 (663880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760258)

Oh you 'tire', do you? Well thank you, King Lear, for that bit of input. When you're done playing with yourself as you think about Ayn Rand, maybe you can get back to the real world? You actually tried to apply social Darwinism to a museum...how's that "let's monetize everything, including our history" thing going for ya?

Also: did you miss the whole "distribution of wealth" bit? Let me break it down for you: top %5 of wealth-holders possess roughly 60% of all wealth in the country. This is 2004 figures, so with the economic unpleasantness it's probably shifted a few points, so may be closer to 65% now. (top 10% hold 70+% of all wealth). So, your solution is that private citizens (and here, that would be the 90%-95% of the people NOT in the top bracket) would compete with the top 5-10%'s purchasing ability (specifically their disposable wealth) to subsidize museums and other public institutions to preserve our history. Do you have an analytical problem or an arithmetic problem?

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760362)

I also tire of whiners. Seems to be a lot of them on Slashdot.

You actually tried to apply social Darwinism to a museum...how's that "let's monetize everything, including our history" thing going for ya?

It's called "economics" not "social Darwinism". Monetizing history is so very American and beats throwing history away (the other so very American approach). You propose to dump this document along with thousands, if not millions of similar documents on some hapless museum without corresponding funding. What do you think will happen? I think this stuff would get thrown away. Consider how that document likely found its way into private hands in the first place. It was probably dumped by some NASA group and only saved because a collector got it. So that in my view is the choice, highest bidder or dumpster.

Also: did you miss the whole "distribution of wealth" bit? Let me break it down for you: top %5 of wealth-holders possess roughly 60% of all wealth in the country. This is 2004 figures, so with the economic unpleasantness it's probably shifted a few points, so may be closer to 65% now. (top 10% hold 70+% of all wealth). So, your solution is that private citizens (and here, that would be the 90%-95% of the people NOT in the top bracket) would compete with the top 5-10%'s purchasing ability (specifically their disposable wealth) to subsidize museums and other public institutions to preserve our history. Do you have an analytical problem or an arithmetic problem?

The politics of envy are particularly pathetic. Maybe, those 95% of people should work harder and smarter, if they want more of the wealth? For example, they could start their own business rather than work for an exploitive boss? They could invest their money rather than blow it? That sort of thing.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

trurl7 (663880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760458)

Maybe, those 95% of people should work harder and smarter, if they want more of the wealth?

Ok, now you're officially a troll.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760530)

Ok, now you're officially a troll.

Sure, whatever. I simply don't care about the wealth disparity since I understand pretty well how that 5% got 60% of the wealth.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

trurl7 (663880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760562)

As do I. And many belong in jail for the way they did not. Not all. But many.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760938)

As do I. And many belong in jail for the way they did not. Not all. But many.

And many belong in jail who haven't bothered to earn that sort of money. It's not a useful observation to make.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761392)

Usually it's the case that Mummy and Daddy gave it to them, and the ones that didn't piss it all up the wall on coke and hookers are now the next generation of "the 5%".

"Old money" has been around a long time, hence the name. And the only way the rest of the populace will see any of it is to either pry it out of their cold dead hands, or to sleep with one of them.

Work harder or smarter ... yeah right.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761688)

Usually it's the case that Mummy and Daddy gave it to them, and the ones that didn't piss it all up the wall on coke and hookers are now the next generation of "the 5%".

And where did Mummy and Daddy get it from? It didn't magically come to those people.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31762476)

I once knew a lawyer who worked for the health department in my state. He and I had lunch nearly every day. This was before i owned a house and so eventually we got to talking about how he had purchased his own house, especially the down-payment.
"I had some CDs and I used that money," he told me.
"Where did you get the CDs?" I asked.
"The money came from investments. I was very lucky when I was just out of college."
And now came the tricky part, the part I had to be care about.
"Where did you get the money to make the investments?" I asked him.
You see, he was a lawyer and he could tell that I was asking a series of questions to discover a source.
He nodded and told me "From my parents."
I grew up around money. I had none myself but it always fascinated me how people reacted to it. Normally what you get with 'rich' people is their wealth started from 'good investments' but they fail to say from where the money for the good investments came. If you track back there is always a source of money somewhere. Remember, banks don't make loans to people based on great business plans. Usually a business needs some collateral to secure a loan, and poor people have lousy collateral. The next time you see a 'self-made-man' do a little research; you'll probably find a rich older person in his past helping him out.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764960)

I had none myself but it always fascinated me how people reacted to it.

Why are you interested in the reaction to money? What makes that special to you? How about the reaction to dogshit? All I know, is that some of the creepiest people I ever knew were interested in stuff like that. I guess it helped them understand their prey.

The next time you see a 'self-made-man' do a little research; you'll probably find a rich older person in his past helping him out.

So it's turtles all the way down? Rich people are rich because they're related to rich people? Or because they take advantage of the opportunities that they get?

Here's my take. Successful people are often people who were helped by successful people. You call them "rich" because that's the aspect you see.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31769168)

Most successful people I know are not rich. Many rich people I know are not what I would call successful.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31776228)

Most successful people I know are not rich. Many rich people I know are not what I would call successful.

Maybe you're right. Or maybe this is just sour grapes. I wouldn't know.

The thing that bothers me here is the mythology expressed in this thread tree. Namely, that money comes only by either taking it from someone else, or being closely related to someone who already has it. I get the impression that if I want to be rich, I'm supposed to grind up orphans for glue, marry someone with a lot of money, or have the good sense to be related to a recently deceased with a lot of money. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from people who don't have any economic sense.

You can't make money by being bad to people. Bank robbers, muggers, and other small time criminals would be a lot richer, if that's all it took. And if you go back far enough, everyone is related to some really rich or powerful guy. That relation didn't help the present.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771702)

And where did Mummy and Daddy get it from? It didn't magically come to those people

I did say it was old money, made generations back when people perhaps got away with a lot more. No it didn't "magically" come to them, but it was obtained on the backs of thousands of ignorant workers, and business practices that were questionable to say the least.

The Rockerfellers made their money mostly by being the first US oil monopoly and aggressively killing any competition.

The Astors made their money in part by fur trading and opium dealing.

And in more recent times, go research who profited from the Prohibition Era, or who had connections to the Nazis. Then you'll see all the prominent families gained their wealth in "shady" ways ... I suspect very little of it was ever earned by "hard work".

As other posters have pointed out, even savvy investors / entrepreneurs have to get their initial cash investment from somewhere, and this usually means family. Hell, even Bill Gates had Mummy and Daddy finance his first businesses and his Harvard tuition.

Old money still forms a large part of that 5% who hold all the wealth, and you are very very lucky if you manage to get inside the circle.

Teapot Dome Scandal (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#31774054)

A lot of monied families got where they are through scams, usually made possible through more family money or connections. One that we are still seeing the political aftershocks of is the Teapot Dome Scandal [senate.gov] . It started out as bribery [hnn.us] in the 1920's and leaves us today in the Middle East.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31775246)

I did say it was old money, made generations back when people perhaps got away with a lot more. No it didn't "magically" come to them, but it was obtained on the backs of thousands of ignorant workers, and business practices that were questionable to say the least.

It was also obtained by offering something of great value. Rockefeller created the first true, modern oil infrastructure from well to gas station. Vanderbilt built railroads that greatly aided US industry. Edison developed through his R&D organization, many electrical devices used today (particularly the incandescent light bulb), modern electricity delivery infrastructure, and the very concept of a private R&D business.

There's a simple rebuttal to the claim that all wealth comes from old money. Old money doesn't survive old heirs. It's pretty obvious that heirs squander that money, dissipating even the largest fortunes in a few generations. The Rockefeller wealth might be a notable exception, simply because most of the wealth is in a trust (for now). Even that will go away. Human ingenuity will find a way to tap even the hardest to reach dumb money.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31763196)

I simply don't care about the wealth disparity since I understand pretty well how that 5% got 60% of the wealth.

They inherited it from their parents or grandparents who actually did all the work to earn it?

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765026)

They inherited it from their parents or grandparents who actually did all the work to earn it?

We have a winner. Someone earned it. That's why it's there.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760516)

The politics of envy are particularly pathetic. Maybe, those 95% of people should work harder and smarter, if they want more of the wealth? For example, they could start their own business rather than work for an exploitive boss? They could invest their money rather than blow it? That sort of thing.

In the world of the future, it will be possible for every single able-bodied working American to run his/her own business, and each will be staffed by a group of diligent and maintenance-free robots* *immigrants

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761012)

Let me break it down for you: top %5 of wealth-holders possess roughly 60% of all wealth in the country.

Let's ignore the possibility that perhaps they EARNED that money, and point out that it would be hard for poor people to hold most of the wealth, wouldn't it? Unless, of course, we had a LOT of them-- which is what some on the left really want. By the way, that top 5% also pays 61% of income tax.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

trurl7 (663880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761138)

Yes, I'm so glad all those wealth-holders are paying [go.com] their [corpwatch.org] taxes [ctj.org] !

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764124)

However, the top 5% typically don't pay their share of FICA, which ranges from 15% for the poor down to maybe 12% for those on the edge of not paying it. (The half euphemistically called "employer contribution" is not taxed as income.) FICA is a major burden on the low income earner, and means that the millionaire has less marginal tax on earned income than the upper middle class earner.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (3, Insightful)

vtechpilot (468543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760296)

I hope you are being ironic but I can't tell. If you're serious then it requires rebuttal. If a museum doesn't have interesting artifacts, then they don't attract visitors. If they don't attract visitors they don't have admissions income (or in the case of free museums have a hard time justifying the public funding they receive). Without income, they can't acquire interesting artifacts. It is a catch 22. If museums had to be run as a business and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, we wouldn't have any museums. All the great museums owe their existence to gift or public grant: The Louvre, The British Museum, The Smithsonian, American Museum of Natural History.

If these items are currently NASA property then transferring an asset from one government body to another has zero cost and the museum should not have to pay to acquire them. If these are not NASA property then there are one of two possibilities. 1) They are stolen US Government property. 2) NASA was wrong to transfer them to private ownership in the first place.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760600)

If museums had to be run as a business and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, we wouldn't have any museums.

I am being serious and this is wrong. First, there are museums being run as a business. Second, a museum doesn't have to be run as a business to succeed. You already mentioned donations to the museum.

If these items are currently NASA property then transferring an asset from one government body to another has zero cost and the museum should not have to pay to acquire them. If these are not NASA property then there are one of two possibilities. 1) They are stolen US Government property. 2) NASA was wrong to transfer them to private ownership in the first place.

Wrong again. Someone has to pay to transfer and store the item. As I mention elsewhere, the likely reason that this item is being auctioned in the first place, was because NASA had to choose between throwing these documents away and giving them to private ownership. They chose the latter and saved a piece of history.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (2, Insightful)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760682)

You're talking as if donating to them to a museum rather than throwing them away or auctioning them would be inconceivable.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760980)

You're talking as if donating to them to a museum rather than throwing them away or auctioning them would be inconceivable.

You don't understand the quantity of documentation that NASA is sitting on. I understand there are warehouses of the stuff. Even the more valuable stuff is crammed into a few small libraries which have to make room every so often. IMHO there's not enough museums to accept these donations or store the documentation (unless, the museum is allowed to throw away the less useful stuff). There's not enough manpower to sort through the stuff and figure out what is what. Most of it will be thrown away.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761254)

Yes. If it's a question of preservation, many private collectors will do an equal or better job. They have a personal vested interest in preserving it, and there's less of a chance of it being stolen (not on public display). Of course, the public won't be able to see it themselves, but all they need to do is scan it once.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764292)

They have a personal vested interest in preserving it, and there's less of a chance of it being stolen (not on public display).

The last big-time gallery heist in the U.S. was in 1990.

On March 18, 1990, the Gardner Museum was robbed by two unknown white males dressed in police uniforms and identifying themselves a Boston police officers. The unknown subjects gained entrance into the museum by advising on-duty security personnel that they were responding to a call of a disturbance within the compound. Security, contrary to museum regulations, allowed the unknown subjects into the facility.
Upon gaining entry, the two unknown subjects abducted the on duty security personnel, securing both guards with duct tape and handcuffs in separate remote areas of the museum's basement. The unknown subjects brandished no weapons, nor were any weapons seen during this heist. Other than a "panic" button located behind the guards' watch desk area, the museum alarm system was internally only. Since the panic button was not activated, no actual police notification was made during the robbery. The video surveillance film was seized by the unknown subjects prior to their departure.

No arrests and no recovery. The take around $300 million. Robbery of priceless works of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2 Palace Road, Boston, Massachusetts, March 18, 1990. [fbi.gov]

The FBI maintains the National Stolen Art File [fbi.gov] . which is directly accessible to law enforcement agencies only.

The object must be uniquely identifiable and have historical or artistic significance. This includes fine arts, decorative arts, antiquities, Asian art, Islamic art, Native American art, ethnographic objects, archaeological material, textiles, books and manuscripts, clocks and watches, coins, stamps, musical instruments, and scientific instruments.
The object must be valued at least $2,000; or less if associated with a major crime

The FBI art theft team has about a dozen full time agents.

 

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31761592)

We the People, paid for that document and thus own that document. Why should we the People have to pay, or re-pay, to keep it in our archive?

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761646)

We the People, paid for that document and thus own that document.

Not any more.

Why should we the People have to pay, or re-pay, to keep it in our archive?

Because otherwise "We the People" will throw it away. Documents do not magically store or maintain themselves. That requires money which "We the People" frankly have been spending on other things.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (4, Funny)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760166)

I don't understand why these items aren't going to the National Archives. Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything. The Smithsonian Institution would be a better home than some private collection.

Let's see... You wan't to have the government place these items in some government run institution, so we can all "share" equal access to them? Instead of letting the free market "take care" of priceless historical artifacts?
Sounds kind of like communism to me.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (2, Insightful)

eth1 (94901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760474)

More like they're taking something valuable and interesting, created with our tax money, and taking money to make it inaccessible to the people it actually belongs to.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761568)

in some government run institution, so we can all "share" equal access to them? Instead of letting the free market "take care" of priceless historical artifacts? Sounds kind of like communism to me.

Us taxpayers paid for those things. Now you want us to pay twice?

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760176)

Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything.

Or maybe they will raise enough money to do something like this...
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/25/1736252/Balloon-and-Duct-Tape-Deliver-Great-Space-Photos [slashdot.org]

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#31763208)

Saying a balloon can make it into space makes as much sense as saying a cork will rise beyond the surface of the water.

Re:Why are these not being given to a Museum? (1)

coolmoose25 (1057210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760426)

It is entirely possible that these items are actually PRIVATELY owned now... For instance, the brush that was used on Apollo 14 to clean camera lenses, according to the description, was presented to Fred Haise for his help in the Apollo 14 mission. It says the other astronauts on that mission "gave" it to him. I don't know if they had the right to "give" it to him - our tax dollars paid for the brush, and more importantly, paid to fly it to the moon. But assuming that NASA allowed the astronauts to "have" some of this memorabilia doesn't bother me too much, as these guys put their lives at significant risk. Perhaps this was a form of compensation for that risk? Anyway, from the description, it sounds like the brush belonged PERSONALLY to Fred Haise. If he wants to auction it, or sell it to Big Hoss on Pawn Stars, it's really none of my business, assuming that he came to own the brush legitimately. The same goes for all the other stuff here...

BTW - I want that brush - it has moon dust on it. I won't get it, but that's okay, someone else will, and they'll cherish it in a way the "government" never could. As far as the museum argument - I got to touch a moon rock at the Air and Space Museum... So did everyone else. We got to touch the one part of the rock that wasn't covered in Lucite - a one square inch section, that has been polished down to flat from all that touching. Personally, I'm glad some of this stuff is being preserved in the private sector, where it can't succumb to the tragedy of the commons...

What moon landing? (1, Funny)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759822)

Since the moon landing was a hoax, would these be authentic fake moon landing manual pages, or fake moon landing authentic manual pages?

Re:What moon landing? (1, Redundant)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759896)

If the moon landing was fake, so are those manual pages!

Re:What moon landing? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760492)

Well, they look real enough. Hell, did you notice? They're printed! Today, I'd bet documentation would be more along the lines of:

Pick a Help Topic
- What's new in Apollo 13
- User and system guides
- Apollo 13 basics
- Hardware
- Software
- Fixing a problem
- Protecting your shuttle
- Send feedback to NASA

Ask for Assistance
- Call Houston
- Get support or find information online

Pick a Task
- Use the wizard to diagnose a problem
- Stir oxygen and hydrogen tanks
- Shutdown the command module
- Fly a circumlunar abort

Did you know?
The LM "lifeboat" consumables are intended only to sustain two people for
two days, not three people for four days.

Re:What moon landing? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761474)

You forgot Clippy, how could you ?

It looks like you're trying to fit a square cartridge into a round hole. Would you like help with that ?
 

Re:What moon landing? (1)

shogun (657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31762000)

- Protecting your shuttle

I'm not sure what that section would be doing in an Apollo 13 manual even if it was printed today...

Re:What moon landing? (4, Funny)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759928)

Fake or not, Apollo 13 didn't land on the moon. (Yes, I know, whoosh....)

Re:What moon landing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31760326)

Maybe they faked not landing to cover up what they found down there!

Re:What moon landing? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761832)

Oops, sorry, I'm not old enough to remember that.

Also, OK, OK, I'm getting off your lawn.

Re:What moon landing? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31762070)

Fake or not, Apollo 13 didn't land on the moon. (Yes, I know, whoosh....)

In space there's no air to go 'whoosh', so this just further proves our whole space program is a sham!

Re:What moon landing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31760000)

Apollo 13 never had a chance to make a fake moon landing.

bizn4t3h (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31759828)

the reaper BSD'5 'I HAVE TO KILL create, manufacture it. Do not share more gay than they [gay-sex-access.com]? Fortunately, Linux Lite is straining

creators' planet/population rescue manuals,.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31759838)

are available, free of charge, & include all pages & tips for surviving our stint here masquerading as part of the infamous greed/fear/ego based species known as man'kind'.

everything made by man fails. for some reason, people request proof of that. just look about you.

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who provide more than enough of everything for everyone, with no personal gain motives, since/until forever. see you there?

the lights are coming up all over now. we're only here to care for one another. everything else is temporary illusion/hypenosys.

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31759840)

They are auctioning a booklet that probably has some information but the public cant access it because the rich people will win it.

                      Unless, the winner sells it on ebay...

Site broken (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759898)

Their so-called "auction site" is broken - I can't even see the current highest bid.

love grammar (-1, Offtopic)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31759920)

> the chances of actually outbidding a rich space enthusiast is

Ok. And what is the chances of writing stories in good English? ;-p

Re:love grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31760012)

Congrats, want a medal?

These belong in the National Archives/Smithsonian (4, Insightful)

Genom (3868) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760014)

Is it wrong that I'm a little dismayed at this? IMHO these belong in the National Archives, or at the Smithsonian's Air & Space museum, not in the hands of the highest bidder. They're a part of our space program's history, and deserve to be preserved.

Re:These belong in the National Archives/Smithsoni (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760330)

Why are all you people so sure that there is a museum that even wants it?

And I don't say that from opposition to preserving interesting history. Is NASA's disposition process really so broken that the Smithsonian isn't getting stuff they want?

Re:These belong in the National Archives/Smithsoni (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761742)

Is it wrong that I'm a little dismayed at this?

Yes, it is wrong. Where are these museums going to put this stuff? Who is going to pay for storage and maintenance? As I understand it, NASA has warehouses of this stuff. The Smithsonian (and other museums) could pick most of it up, if they wanted to. They don't because that would require spending a lot of money they don't have.

Re:These belong in the National Archives/Smithsoni (1)

bobsledbob (315580) | more than 4 years ago | (#31762814)

No, you belong in a museum, Dr. Jones.

Why not a museum? (1)

MortenMW (968289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760016)

In the worst case, someone buys it and keeps it in their "private" collection. In effect, no one will ever see it again. Why can't NASA give it to a museum?

You can see it right now (3, Interesting)

Comboman (895500) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760460)

In effect, no one will ever see it again. Why can't NASA give it to a museum?

If you want to see it, go to the item listing page at Bonhams. [bonhams.com] You can see a high-resolution photo of both sides of the sheet. For the purposes of research or curiosity that's a much closer look than you would get if it were behind glass in a museum. Besides, even though the Air & Space museum is huge (they've got a Concorde, 727, SR-71, Space Shuttle, etc), they don't have room to preserve and display every piece of paper that an astronaut ever wrote on. This is ONE PAGE out a binder with hundreds of pages, which is one of thousands of binders NASA used in the space program. It's autographed on one side by Lovell, so I suspect this is from his personal binder and a some point he was using pages out of it for autographs instead of using photos. Just because something is collectible, doesn't mean it's historically significant.

Re:Why not a museum? (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 4 years ago | (#31770500)

Why can't they just scan it, preserve any information that's vested in the documents and then sell it.

My piece of space (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31760018)

Posting as AC, just in case....

In 1969, NASA put the command module and some other stuff on a trailer and toured the state capitals. The capsule was not behind glass or anything. The walkway led past it, and only a railing separated the audience from the capsule. I reached over to touch the heat shield. It was surprisingly brittle, and I scratched it experimentally to see how hard it was. It wasn't, and a bunch came off under a couple of my nails. I looked around, but nobody noticed, so I went to my family's car and put the black stuff into a Jolly Rancher wrapper and tucked it safely away. Later, I put it into a cheap picture frame with a typewritten note. I have it today, sitting on the mantle, my misbegotten piece of the space program.

It is my little reward, I guess, for all those predawns, getting up early on the West Coast to watch TV coverage of launches of the Mercury and then the Gemini missions and building endless models of the space crafts.

Re:My piece of space (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760612)

Interestingly its that brittleness that makes the heat shield so critical to protect, and why even the slightest scratch in it can cause catastrophic problems for the crew aboard. I'm sure you've realized this by now though, but they most likely never used the capsule after they decided to tour it anyway, so you couldn't have caused any real problems (other than the obvious vandalism of a priceless artifact of some of the most important scientific missions). That kind of stuff makes me wish I had been born then to be able to see some of that as it was happening. One of the neatest things I've ever seen was a marathon that NASA TV had on a few years ago where they took all the Apollo footage and played it end to end in chronological order so that it seemed like it was actually happening (obviously sped up since there wasn't days/years between missions and broadcasts). It was long as hell (8hrs or longer if I remember correctly), but kept me watching the entire time. I wish they'd do that kind of thing more often.

Re:My piece of space (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761142)

And now we know what really happened to Columbia...

One Flight Manual, somewhat damaged. (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760114)

Missing front cover (used to repair air filters).

proof it was all fake - no DYRWT switches (2, Funny)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760268)

Nowhere do you see any "do you really want to..." switches. I mean really, who would build such a space craft and only have a switch or button which doesn't have a secondary switch or button labeled "do you really want to?"(DYRWT) to be sure the operator wants to throw that switch? Or _really_ sure for that matter. It must be fake.

LoB

Get a close up look at a piece of history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31760350)

A friend and I went to the auction for a piece of ENIAC! I was pretty skeptical it would hold any interest and doubtful it would be in my price range, but it was exciting to see up close and exciting to watch the process. It turns out the only part I really regret was having to wait through all the Titanic junk to get to the good part. When it finally came up we fought for attention to try to get an early bid in just to say we did, but the bids quickly went into the stratosphere. It was also satisfying seeing the final price put to shame all that Titanic junk the auction house was so proud of.

Very exciting. If you're in that area, even if you're not a fan of auctions, I strongly recommend the experience. Go. Get a close up look at a piece of history.

robbIE's manual for gnu online dating available? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31760658)

yet another crash landing guide. not many pages, it's more like a contract. mynuts won; we'd rather chew nails than remember those daze.

Meh (1)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31760966)

It's not this stuff ever made it to the moon.

Pages, paper: what is this "manual" they speak of? (1)

dmunz (627597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31761242)

They actually lugged paper documents to the moon? I wonder how much weight NASA has shaved off missions over the years by reducing paper and upgrading electronics.

Why would you need such overpriced stuff? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31761550)

Why pay such high prices for a few pages of original manual when you can just buy one of these [haynes.co.uk] for your maintenance needs?

c0m (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31763016)

Adler Planetarium - Apollo 13 (1)

Artagel (114272) | more than 4 years ago | (#31764958)

For those with less money, and in Chicago, the Adler Planetarium has a raft of events for the 40th anniversary of Apollo 13. http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/special/index.shtml#apollo [adlerplanetarium.org] And for those with a fair bit of money there is an expensive dinner with a bunch of astronauts, including the two still-living Apollo 13 astronauts. www.adlerplanetarium.org/special/doc/Apollo13invite (Yes, I know, seriously off-topic, but please don't punish!)

Condition? (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767706)

I mean, how much can that manual be worth with the cover torn off of it? ;^)

--
Toro

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?