NASA Sues Astronaut, Claiming He Stole Space Camera... 40 Years Ago
from the laches,-anyone? dept
With the Space Shuttle program ending, it appears that NASA has some spare time on its hands... and it's using it to sue a former astronaut for trying to auction off a lunar movie camera that he claims he was given after becoming the sixth man to walk on the moon in 1971. Yes, he has had the camera for forty years, and it's just now that he was seeking to auction it off that NASA suddenly remembered it existed and is claiming that it owns it. Is there really no statute of limitations here? Or possibly a laches claim? Frankly, the whole thing just seems petty.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/tinfoil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$80,000 is not petty.
And in fact, the people of the US paid for it. IF he had permission to take it, then he had a co-conspirator is all. Two wrongs don't make a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $80,000 is not petty.
Example: the math problem is 1 + 5 but you make two mistakes when writing it down
1) you use 11 instead of 1
2) you use a (-) instead of a (+)
The result is 6, which is right despite your two wrongs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $80,000 is not petty.
1) 11 instead of 1
2) - instead of +
11 - 6 = 5
wrong is wrong, no matter how many wrongs it takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $80,000 is not petty.
I assume you'll be sending in a SWAT team to take back every Medal of Honor ever awarded? I mean, those were paid for by the government too. Clearly, the presidents who gave them out were nothing more than "co-conspirators".
(In the future, reflect on what the voices in your head are saying before you transcribe it to the internet for all to see. Please!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $80,000 is not petty.
Are you going to sue me for infringing on your general idea of refuting idiocy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $80,000 is not petty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $80,000 is not petty.
Foodtards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one has ever been to the moon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah. We are all happily laboring along inside the Matrix and the moon was destroyed a century ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're out of order you know that! Don't argue with the facts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Treasure
That camera was and is the property of NASA. Whoever "gave" it to the astronaut probably didn't have the authority to do so and did not understand the significance.
The camera belongs in a museum not in an auction.
Just like someone who innocently brings home an ancient artifact they dug up somewhere doesn't intend any harm, I don't think anyone had any intent to commit a crime here. Nonetheless, that camera is an artifact and will only increase in value as such over time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Treasure
> didn't have the authority to do so and did not
> understand the significance.
This little 'fact' keeps getting repeated in this thread, but it's nothing but inaccurate speculation.
The *fact* is that various government officials are indeed empowered to make gifts of this sort and it's hardly beyond the bounds of reasonability that an astronaut could have been presented the camera as a gift for his service.
Until it's determined conclusively that whomever gave it to him had no authority to do so, claiming it as true (or even probably true) is a fallacy.
As for whether the giftor "understood the significance" of the item, that is absolutely irrevelant. The government can't make someone a gift, and then four decades later come back and say, "Well, we didn't think it would actually become so valuable, so now we want it back."
Too bad. Once it was gifted, it became the astronaut's property, not NASA's, and it doesn't matter if it became the most important historical artifact in the history of mankind. It's still his property.
> Nonetheless, that camera is an artifact and
> will only increase in value as such over time.
While that may be true, it hardly gives rise to legal grounds for the government to seize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Treasure
Then maybe a museum should buy it, and everyone could be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: National Treasure
Plus, if they buy it, they could be charged with receiving misappropriated government materiel.
Or are you happy to apply the "possesion is 9/10th's of the law" ?
Or the 'finders, keepers' statute ?
Who is the museum going to buy it off ? the US Government ? as they are the only ones with the right to sell it.
I know that if you wish to purchase government stock or equipment you have to go through a great deal of paperwork to ensure you can prove in the future that you did not steal it.
That would apply to NASA as well, NASA does not simply run a 'car boot' sale after each mission to make a few extra dollars, or give away the company tresures to employees !!
It may well have been provided to him as someone else stated, for his "show and tell" when he is on his speaking circuit, "Yes, kids this is the very camera I made this film with".
With the full understanding that when he 'finished' with it he would GIVE IT BACK.
Of Course, it is so easy to forget that bit.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: National Treasure
NASA: They want the camera out of his hands. This would accomplish that.
Astronaut: He wants money. This would accomplish that.
The Public: We want historical pieces to be preserved for ourselves and future generations. This would accomplish that.
Museum: It would certainly be a nice addition to an existing exhibit, drawing in folks to see it. (Especially with the surrounding publicity.) This would accomplish that.
All of your other BS comments aren't relevant to my comment. Try again, stalker troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
burying the lead
"[Mitchell] did admit to the Post that NASA had, in the past, asked for the camera back. He believed the matter had been laid to rest."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: burying the lead
I don't see how the fact that they asked for it back after they gave it to him changes anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money Problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Astronaut's camera
If the camera was simply "forgotten" by NASA (that is, they "knew or should have known") of course, statute of limitations or laches (actually both) apply.
If NASA didn't know where the camera was (they have a paper trail that shows as far as they knew, it just disappeared), of course NOT!
You should know that - you appear to have absorbed a considerable amount of legal expertise (or think you did).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Govt property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I worked at Circuit City when it went out of business, and I remember the new guy who started two weeks earlier stealing my work uniform - literally my shirt - probably so he could sell it on Ebay or tack it to his wall for some imaginary geek cred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not NASA's to give !!!
"Someone said I could have it !!!! "
Yea, right,, who ? your mom ?
But anyone who is honest would understand that !!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]