NASA Sues Apollo Astronaut To Return Moon Camera

Hugh Pickens writes "The US government has brought a lawsuit against astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon, after discovering that Mitchell had approached a NY auction house trying to sell a 16-millimeter data acquisition camera that was supposed to have been left in the lunar module. Mitchell argues that too many years have gone by for the government to pursue the camera as stolen and besides, it was given to the now 80-year-old moonwalker as a gift in line with NASA's then-policies governing spent equipment. However, the government contends it has no record of the camera being given to Mitchell who elected to remove it from the lunar module before parting ways with the spacecraft and returning to Earth, and the judge has ruled that the government is not bound by the statute of limitations denying Mitchell's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Apollo 14 astronauts were not the only crewmates to salvage parts of their lunar module as mementos: Astronauts aboard Apollo 12 and Apollo 15 ripped off parts of their moonwalking suits' life support backpacks before they were discarded onto the lunar surface. But what makes Mitchell's case different is that other astronauts asked their bosses before each mission for permission and provided a list of items they planned to keep while apparently Mitchell didn't. 'They give me a list of things they're going to bring back,' said Deke Slayton, head of NASA's astronaut corps, who died in 1993. 'I give it to the program office and they bring 'em back.' For his part, Mitchell does not seem ready to give up the camera as the case prepares to go to trial next year."

Comments

Oh boy...

[GameboyRMH]

The conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this one...

Re:Oh boy...

[0123456]

Nevermind that, if violating an order, by taking the camera back with them had been sufficient to affect the launch from the Moon and created an Apollo 13 like crisis (or even killed the astronauts) would it be OK?

Apollo astronauts weren't retards. There was a significant margin in return mass and no chance that a 16mm camera would take them over that margin unless they were already in 'an Apollo 13 like crisis'.

Heck, it's not like they weighed every moon rock before the return trip to make sure they didn't have too many.

Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[Rockoon]

Did I just read that the government is not bound by the statute of limitations?

..and here I thought the statute of limitations was specifically there to bind the government.

Re:Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[canajin56]

Yes, you read that. It was written by the submitter, not by the judge or by the lawyers. The judge said that the Federal government is not bound by State statues. And so even if in that particular state there's a law that says stolen property becomes the property of the possessor after X amount of time, these laws do not apply to Federal property. But that's not as nice of an anti-government soundbite, so obviously some words had to be excised.

Re:Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[pyrr]

The statute of limitations doesn't apply. They're not prosecuting him for a crime.

They're attempting to recover stolen property. Just because you stole something a really long time ago doesn't make it yours, free and clear. That's why the government can repossess moon rocks, no matter whose hands they passed through over the years. The odds of most stolen property after years and passing through many hands is remote, most people don't care enough to pursue their stuff that long...but if someone shows up one day, claiming to possess something he stole and using the people he stole it from as being the provenance that gives it all its value (the camera would be worth what, $100 tops as an obsolete scientific curiosity had it not gone to the moon?), I think the US Government is well within its rights to demand return of its property.

Re:Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[idontgno]

Well, let's consider the Federal Statute of limitations.

This page has a summary.

The basic Fed statute of limitations is 5 years.

There are exceptions. Unless it's a capital offense or child sexual abuse, or "continuing and uninterrupted offenses" (fugitive from the law, possession of counterfeit money, etc.) the maximum appears to be 10 years.

With one eye-catching exception:

In cases of defrauding the United States, if the fraud was related to a contract, property, or other claim with the Department of Defense (eg, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Army) and the US is at war, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until after hostilities have ended. 18 USC 3287.

So... all we need is for the government to assert that the camera was actually military property (by some tortured extension of the relationship between NASA and the DoD, or by the fact that Mitchell was a Navy Officer at the time of the offense), and that the United States has been at a continuous state of war since the time of the offense.

Judging from how the government has been treating other civil rights, I could definitely imagine it arguing for that latter point. Haven't we been in a state of undeclared war since 1950 or something? I mean, we've always been at war with Eastasia. ALWAYS.

Of course, IANAL, and this is all speculation. But there is a Federal Statute of Limitations, and it would take some kind of brass to just handwave it away.

Re:Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[Yakasha]

I think the US Government is well within its rights to demand return of its property.

They're suing to get back their trash. The camera was a part of the lunar module which was ditched half-way off the moon, fell back to the moon, and turned into a pile of squished metal.

Seriously its like suing an 80 year old homeless guy for stealing a half-eaten hamburger out of your trash-can.

Re:Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[gad_zuki!]

Hey, you don't get on the front page of slashdot without lots of bias. This crowd leans right/libertarian so you need to pander to them to keep the ads flowing.

Before we start deifying Mitchell as some kind of anti-government hero and genius, I'd like to point out that he's deeply into ESP, the paranormal, remote viewing/healing, and other woo. He started something called the Institute for Noetic Sciences in the 1970s. He's essentially the opposite of James Randi. I love to see these charlatans exposed in other parts of their lives too. Turns out he's not only a Uri Geller-level bullshitter but also a common thief.

Re:Not bound by the statute of limitations?

[pyrr]

It would set a very bad precedent if they allowed a US employee to violate the rules. I doubt the camera weighed all that much, but I'll go with the same argument that holds that it's unethical to take anything from a site, "What if everyone took a (rock, artifact, fossil, etc.)?", which my folks rightly used early and often. In this case, astronauts looting things isn't likely going to deprive science or other sightseers of knowledge or the experience, but NASA has very strict rules for very good reasons.

Astronauts are apparently allowed a small box for mementos to take into space and return with (I learned this on Pawn Stars when someone brought in a moon mission patch, photo, and autograph display). Nothing more without authorization. What if all the other members of the moon landing crew also decided to smuggle crap, and the module wound up being overweight? That could've endangered the lives of the crew. Why should Edgar's alleged bad behavior allow him to benefit in such a way that all the other moon astronauts didn't, because they behaved themselves?

How's that again?

[93 Escort Wagon]

'They give me a list of things they're going to bring back,' said Deke Slayton, head of NASA's astronaut corps, who died in 1993.

A guy who died 18 years ago is the head of NASA's astronaut corps? That explains a lot.

Should we refer to it as the astronaut "corpse" then?

Re:How's that again?

[jd]

The fact that he's still talking is what really bothers me.

"government is not bound by"

[sycodon]

"...government is not bound by..."

This pretty much explains how we got to where we are today.

NASA values camera more than avoiding bad press?

[johnthorensen]

Seems like a silly choice if you ask me. Especially when the guy is 80-years-old and a national hero. Moon rocks, I understand - they're in limited supply and of real research value. A camera? C'mon.

As a sidenote, Space is about the only topic outside of friends and family that can still bring a tear to this grown man's eye. For me, it's the last romantic pursuit of mankind, and one which I treat with the utmost reverence. It's a shame that it's so wrapped up in politics.

Abandoned property

[Quila]

You'd think anything purposely designated to be left on the Moon is about as abandoned as property can get.

Why am I not surprised?

[JoshuaZ]

Honestly, I'm not that surprised that of all the astronauts who walked on the moon that this would be an issue with Edgar Mitchell. He's always been a bit of an odd ball/loose cannon. He's a strong believer in psychics and thinks that UFOs are actually visiting aliens. He also claims to have been involved in remote healing and ESP. He founded the very New Agey Institute for Noetic Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences (some may remember them for getting some degree of reference in Dan Brown's last book.) A lot of NASA has had very little patience with him. It isn't surprising that he'd both have neglected to do something like tell the rest of NASA what he was taking back and that he would have annoyed them enough that they would not end up finding an amicable resolution of the issue.

Its about the sale not the possession?

[perpenso]

I am just guessing but I expect its not about possessing the "discarded" gear, rather its about trying to profit from it. If it had been passed on to his kids/grandkids or put in a museum for display I doubt the government would have cared.