|
Author
|
Topic: Petition: Grissoms should get spacesuit
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 12300
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted April 06, 2005 06:58 AM
   
Teen launches effort; Smithsonian says garb is theirs
by Patrick Peterson, Florida Today quote:
A Connecticut schoolgirl is fighting the federal government over an artifact of space exploration history.Amanda Meyer, 15, of Madison, Conn., has launched a petition drive to have the Mercury spacesuit worn by Gus Grissom returned to his family. Meyer says the family told her they want the suit to tour the country to help keep the late astronaut's memory alive. Despite almost 500 signatures on an Internet petition, the silver suit likely will remain in the Astronaut Hall of Fame near Kennedy Space Center, where it is the focus of an exhibit on the Mercury program. "They have not offered any explanation," said Meyer, who said she plans to become an astronaut. "One NASA representative did e-mail me. They want to keep it." The suit's staying put, said Peter Golkin, a spokesman for the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum, which claims the suit. "You've got to give young Amanda credit for being interested," Golkin said. "Gus Grissom's certainly a great role model for someone who wants to be an astronaut. But I don't think she got her facts straight."
[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited April 06, 2005).] IP: Logged |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 204
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted April 06, 2005 08:23 AM
Sometimes I think the Grissom family does Gus' legacy harm by all this arguing.IP: Logged |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1222
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted April 06, 2005 08:25 AM
While I agree with the Smithsonian's claim of ownership, and I feel Scott is a bit misguided in his constant attacks on NASA and anyone who has any dealings with the events of January 1967 and their " motives ". Let the Grissom family have the suit. How many suits does the Smithsonian have in storage away from the eyes of the public? Is one Mercury suit going to make a big difference? Transfer ownership, but make them sign a document that the suit will remain intact, unsold..or we may see swatches of Gus' suit all over the place. IP: Logged |
thump
Member Posts: 434
From: washington dc usa
Registered: May 2004
|
posted April 06, 2005 08:41 AM
My 2 cents to this is I agree with the Smithsonian, due to the fact if the family does get it, what type of conservation skills will they have, none I expect. Now if they want it to go to a museum, the Smithsonian loans out items all the time, and can still recall the item if needed or conservation is needed. If it goes to the family and they use it for show and tells this suit will be damaged for all time and it's "life" expectancy will be very shortIP: Logged |
Jurg Bolli
Member Posts: 323
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 06, 2005 08:52 AM
I am with Fra Mauro on this one.
JurgIP: Logged |
spaced out
Member Posts: 1360
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted April 06, 2005 08:52 AM
quote:
...make them sign a document that the suit will remain intact, ...or we may see swatches of Gus' suit all over the place.
Do I hear the distant sound of Florian sharpening his scissors?  IP: Logged |
Richard
unregistered
|
posted April 06, 2005 08:54 AM
I think it is horrible for the Grissom family to use a child to do their bidding.By the way, if every artifact related to Grissom was so precious to the family, why have they been selling off so many of them in auctions. What makes the suit different? IP: Logged |
Rodina
Member Posts: 824
From: Pleasant Hill, CA
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted April 06, 2005 09:59 AM
I doubt NASA (or any gov't program) will be anywhere close to the only ticket to orbit by the time this girl is, say, 40. But busting NASA's chops over Grissomite conspiracies won't look good on the application.IP: Logged |
Andy McCulley
Member Posts: 159
From: Lansdale, PA USA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted April 06, 2005 10:27 AM
I tend to agree with you, John, what difference would one Mercury suit make? But I have to respectfully disagree that NASA or the Smithsonian should give ownership of the suit, or any other artifact for that matter, to a private individual.Once the first artifact is given over to private ownership, that will open the door and be used as the example for everyone else. And, before you know it, the courts will be agreeing and handing out all sorts of artifacts. I don't beleive any of the Astronauts would cut up, deface or in any way, destroy the artifact. However, I do believe that, as these gentlemen pass on to their great rewards, you would see pieces of the artifacts turning up on ebay. I believe it would be a serious mistake to give up artifacts from our wonderful space history to private individuals. IP: Logged |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 614
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 06, 2005 10:32 AM
I think the suit should be given to the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center so it can be restored (along with the helmet) so it can be placed next to or inside the Liberty Bell 7. It would really make the display awesome and would make it a small tribute to Gus Grissom.
I also don't understand why the Grissoms dislike NASA and anything that has to do with space. I don't see the other relatives of Apollo 1 victims or Challenger or Columbia acting all weird towards NASA and Space Museums. Let's tarnish the legacy left behind by our loved ones by complaining and saying they were killed by NASA because it was a conspiracy! Give me a break.
-RodrigoIP: Logged |
Moonwalker1954
Member Posts: 166
From: Montreal, Canada
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted April 06, 2005 10:49 AM
You know what, Rodrigo? I was thinking exactly the same thing!!! What's wrong with Scott Grissom?!!! Man, get over it!Pierre-Yves IP: Logged |
mdmyer
Member Posts: 820
From: Humboldt KS USA
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted April 06, 2005 11:34 AM
I have to agree with Rodrigo. What better place to display the suit than the Kansas Cosmosphere. That is where the Liberty Bell is going to be on permanent display and the suit would make a great addition to that display. Mike IP: Logged |
STEVE SMITH
Member Posts: 452
From: WICHITA, KANSAS, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted April 06, 2005 11:49 AM
Since Kansas Cosmosphere is an affiliate of the Smithsonian, perhaps it could happen.Jeff Ollenberger; are you listening. IP: Logged |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1222
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted April 06, 2005 11:55 AM
..Hot Dimmity, Rodrigo.. you are a "steely eyed missle man"..Why didn't I think of that..( 'cause I'm possibly the dumbest New Yawker this side of the mighty Mizzou' )The suit and "Liberty Bell 7" reunited again!! Now thats an idee!! [This message has been edited by John K. Rochester (edited April 06, 2005).] IP: Logged |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 242
From: Martinez, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 06, 2005 01:28 PM
Not that am for giving the spacesuit to the Grissoms (the NASM or NASA should retain title to something of that importance), but does anyone have the link to the petition, or is it simply a rider clause on the "Re-open the Apollo 1 investigation" that Scott Grissom has been pushing?IP: Logged |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 482
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted April 06, 2005 01:47 PM
I think the suit should go back to Scott Grissom, that way we'll all be able to buy from Ebay a 1" x 1" section of this rare & historic space suit to hang on our walls. Where do I send my check and I'd really like a piece of the metal mesh????It's pathetic when a manipulated and uninformed little girl is given so much press of such a non-issue. Why isn't she saving the gay multi-cultural whales for Jesus or some other inane thing like everyone else does??? It's obvious that the Grissoms are doing anything they can to be counter productive to NASA but there has to be a line drawn so Scott can't bully anyone else. Their antics have no bearing on Gus's legacy because we all know that Gus would spank his little boy for pulling this publicity stunt. Gus was the pro of pro's and nothing his family of clowns pull out of their hat, will change the fact that he was the most respected by his peers and the best in his field. Ray IP: Logged |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 242
From: Martinez, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 06, 2005 01:53 PM
Never mind... Found it...
http://www.datamanos2.com/apollo_burning.html And
http://www.freewebs.com/mercury7savethesuit/index.htm [This message has been edited by cfreeze79 (edited April 20, 2005).] IP: Logged |
Richard
unregistered
|
posted April 06, 2005 03:03 PM
OK, I know I'm probably going to get some people upset about this, but what makes the Grissom family think that they are so special to deserve the spacesuit? Are they more special than families of Basset, See, White, etc. Does it seem to others that Scott Grissom has now made a career of playing a victim? IP: Logged |
Dirk
Member Posts: 384
From: Belgium
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted April 06, 2005 03:58 PM
In Belgium there is a tradition.
The family of a pilot who was KIA receives his helmet, suit ets..
Whatever the family will do with the suit, Grissom gave America the history and his dead, I think giving the suit to the family is a small gift considering what Grissom gave.IP: Logged |
Richard
unregistered
|
posted April 06, 2005 05:11 PM
Why stop with the suit? Why not give them the capsule itself?I agree with you that Grissom was a true hero. He put his life on the line. However, he knew the risks. The family knew the risks as well. The risks were extremely high, but at the same time, the glory and the benefits were just as great. Unfortunately, he lost his life and that is incredibly trajic. However, does that really make him and his family a victim of the U.S. government?
IP: Logged |
Leon Ford
Member Posts: 229
From: Durango, CO, United States
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted April 06, 2005 06:39 PM
If I am not mistaken, the Grissoms filed suit against North American after the Apollo 1 fire and got a pretty good settlement. They just seem to keep on and on with what they are "owed". Don't get me wrong, nothing can take the place of a husband and father, but at some point you have to move on.The suit should stay were it is. Leon IP: Logged |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 614
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 06, 2005 07:58 PM
I see that I have given a good idea. We should make a petition to reunite the suit with Liberty Bell 7 at the Cosmosphere. Who else is with me?
-RodrigoIP: Logged |
Choose2Go
Member Posts: 72
From: Merritt Island, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted April 06, 2005 09:18 PM
It would be disasterous to the suit to place it in private hands. First, it was never the property of the astronaut that wore it. We (the American public) paid for it, and legal agreements have been drawn to assure their preservation (i.e. - to the Smithsonian). Second, these suits are currently in a battle against time, as they are gradually deteriorating. Their rubber bladders are disintegrating, among other problems. While the Cosmosphere could do a great restoration, that should only be done when preservation becomes impossible.IP: Logged |
HouseDadX4
unregistered
|
posted April 06, 2005 09:20 PM
I agree..let's reunite the suit with Liberty Bell 7. The suit should remain in a museum for all to see. It is a part of American History. And if there is need for any kind of restoration, then let the Cosmosphere have that project. I got to visit with Jeff Ollenberger and the folks at the Cosmosphere last month. I even got a sneak peek at the construction that is underway for the brand new exhibits that will open in June. It was truly a memorable day...IP: Logged |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 242
From: Martinez, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 06, 2005 11:42 PM
Question: According to the peteion website, Scott Grissom stated that NASA was 'just going to throw out the suit'... Isn't this statement a load of bull, as that was against NASA policy, as well as there was a loan argeement between NASA and Gus (something about a show-n-tell)?IP: Logged |
Jurg Bolli
Member Posts: 323
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 07, 2005 09:09 AM
I vote for unification.
Good idea, Rodrigo.
JurgIP: Logged |
spgrissom
Member Posts: 59
From: Mitchell, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted April 09, 2005 03:22 PM
Personally, the Grissom family had no idea that this young lady was taking the steps she has until this afternoon, 4-10-05. I personally asked Betty and she had no idea.I think that Amanda needs to be commended on her stance. Not too many young people would do such a thing. She has stirred up enough smoke to get the attention of some big time players of this topic...the "owners" of the suit. But Betty and the rest of the family had no idea. Good Job Amanda. Keep up the good work. IP: Logged |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1222
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted April 09, 2005 08:36 PM
And just who is the "owner" of the suit considered to be , in the opinion of the Grissom Family?IP: Logged |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 204
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted April 10, 2005 12:39 PM
When I think of the dignity that the Columbia
and Challenger families have shown, it is in contrast to the Grissom family. Gus' brother doesn't get involved in all this. They let their bittnerness over Liberty Bell 7, Apollo 1
and Gus' lost lunar mission hurt their cause.IP: Logged |
spgrissom
Member Posts: 59
From: Mitchell, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted April 11, 2005 09:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
And just who is the "owner" of the suit considered to be , in the opinion of the Grissom Family?
In the opinion of the family...they are. I think everyone knows what they think. Having said that, they want it to go to Disney to be displayed at the Mission Space ride at Epcot. However, that was not the intent of my original post. I just think it was worth noting that Amanda should get praised for the ambitiousness of her quest. Some people are belittling this 15 year old girl, who the Grissom family does not know, for taking a stand and trying her best to see it through regardless of who owns or gets the suit. Not too many 15 year students out there today that would take this on. [This message has been edited by spgrissom (edited April 11, 2005).] IP: Logged |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 242
From: Martinez, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 11, 2005 10:48 AM
While I don't argee 100% will NASA's method on this, nevertheless, title to the suit never changed hands, officially or unoffically. The suit belongs to all of us, the American people. While I admire Amanada's spirit and dedication, but it is misplaced in this instance. Protect and preserve, yes! But private hands would potentially ruin a piece of history that belongs to all of us. NASA had no reason to protest the family's possession all those years and probably wouldn't have protested in the future, save the family's new adversarial nature due to their unfounded preceptions of conspiracy and coverup by NASA over the Apollo 1 fire. Possession, however, does not always denote owership. Also, flown spacesuits are never disposed of in the matter Scott Grissom described on the petition website. Rather, there is a chain of events, just like there is today, to the disposal of an item (it has to be processed by the government for re-utilization, and then various other institutions. None of the flown spacesuits, to my knowledge have been disposed. Gus would have wanted everyone to be see the suit, and NASA is the best choice for the continued preservation and protection of the suit for the future. The family, as much as I respect what they have endured, has no valid claim to the item that clearly belongs to all of us. IP: Logged |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted April 12, 2005 11:50 PM
I have been intriqued by various reports of the Grissom Family fighting over the space suit. I can understand Scott's position,since his father did bring it home for them to play with, but lets face it, according to the laws of the United States, the spacesuit was bought with taxpayer funds and belongs to NASA or to whoever they give custody to, in this case, the Smithsonian Institute, a nonprofit agency.
If for some reason, NASA caves in, then every taxpayer can request similar things that NASA can't use anymore. Just think, Every Astronaut that flies can then take their suits or helmets home.
There is a set way to do business with NASA or the Government for that matter. First, it has to be declared surplus to their needs. Any other agency can then request it, if it is not claimed, Then any non-profit organization has first dibs. if they don't want it, it must be auctioned off to the highest bidder which could be you or me. The sale is documented on a DD250 or DD1149 showing the disposition and transferring title to the high bidder.
No amount of petitions in the world can change the law. There is one way and that is to get a special bill passed by congress and signed by the president to cover the transfer.
I don't think that will happen.
Another thing, it appears that monetary reasons are behind this effort. Think how valuable this suit would be to a collector, bringing millions on e-bay.
just some ideas for you spacecraft collectors. Just think, if Scott is sucessful, we taxpayers can descend on Kennedy like a swarm of locusts demanding anything that NASA doesn't need. Bring some big trucks cause a lot of that surplus stuff is massive.IP: Logged |
dtemple
Member Posts: 414
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted April 13, 2005 10:59 AM
I agree with most of the comments posted here on this subject. The suit really does belong to NASA. However, Grissom took the suit home with NASA's knowledge and it stayed there. Apparently he was never ordered to bring it back. With no effort on NASA's part to have the suit returned until a few years ago, doesn't that mean the suit was abandoned property by NASA before they tried to reclaim it? If so, the law may side with the Grissom family. I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV  ), but there are laws regarding what constitutes abandoned property.[This message has been edited by dtemple (edited April 13, 2005).] IP: Logged |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 12300
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted April 13, 2005 11:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dtemple:
With no effort on NASA's part to have the suit returned until a few years ago, doesn't that mean the suit was abandoned property by NASA before they tried to reclaim it?
Think of it this way: the Smithsonian has had a loan agreement with the Science Museum in London, England for the Apollo 10 command module since (I believe) the 1970s. Does the fact that the spacecraft has remained there for so long negate the loan agreement? If the Smithsonian withdrew the loan today, would the Science Museum have any legal standing to declare it theirs? If the answer to these questions is "no" then it should not be any different for the loan agreement between NASA and Grissom. [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited April 13, 2005).] IP: Logged |
randy
Member Posts: 721
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted April 13, 2005 11:25 AM
I agree with Fra Mauro on this one, too.IP: Logged |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 614
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 13, 2005 12:04 PM
I don't understand Robert's post regarding Apollo 10...
But in my opinion, we have to be realistic. Why would a 15 year old be interested in the spacesuit going to the Grissom family? There must be something behinds the scenes going on.
I still think that there should be like a counter petition to this thing stating that the suit should be put on display at the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center with all the other Liberty Bell 7 artifacts that will be on display in June.
-RodrigoPS What's next? Who has the legal right to display Apollo 1? IP: Logged |
cfreeze79
Member Posts: 242
From: Martinez, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted April 13, 2005 01:07 PM
Ironically, my understanding is that they (NASA) were going to display Apollo 1 at the Astronaut Hall of Fame, but were only able to secure the blessings of two of the three families.IP: Logged |
dtemple
Member Posts: 414
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted April 13, 2005 07:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Think of it this way: the Smithsonian has had a loan agreement with the Science Museum in London, England for the Apollo 10 command module since (I believe) the 1970s. Does the fact that the spacecraft has remained there for so long negate the loan agreement? If the Smithsonian withdrew the loan today, would the Science Museum have any legal standing to declare it theirs? If the answer to these questions is "no" then it should not be any different for the loan agreement between NASA and Grissom.
In the case of the Smithsonian and the Science Museum I must assume that a document was prepared regarding the loan of the Apollo 10 CM. In the case of Grissom and his Mercury spacesuit there may or may not have been such a signed agreement. Again, I am no lawyer, but do know the importance of signed documents outlining what will and will not be done. I have not seen any mention of a document regarding the spacesuit. Did Grissom sign anything regarding his taking the spacesuit? If he just asked to take it and received verbal permission, there is no legally binding document. The other side is that there is no proof Grissom even had permission to take it if there is nothing official in writing. (I am not implying he did not have permission. Without documentation, though, there is a lack of evidence for a court of law.) Who granted permission to take the suit? Obviously, if it was Robert Gilruth or Jim Webb then there is no one left alive to offer any testimony. Were there any witnesses? If so, are they still alive? I have no idea how this will play out, but simply posed the possibility the suit might be judged in court to be abandoned property. If that happens, the Grissom family will get to keep the spacesuit. In my opinion, the suit should ultimately go to the Smithsonian and then loaned to the Kansas Cosmosphere for display with Liberty Bell 7. The Smithsonian has the means to retard the decay of the suit and have received and preserved other such artifacts, thus they are the most logical choice to receive it. However, I suspect the judge in this case will not consider the historical nature of the suit, but rather what the law says about its ownership. Hopefully, the law will say it belongs to NASA. If NASA had acted sooner on this (1963 for example), then this situation would not exist. On a different note... if NASA was not going to destroy the suit as claimed, why did Grissom not return the spacesuit? He had plenty of chances to do so unless he did not take it as early as I assume he did. Perhaps there is some basis to the claim it would have been destroyed. Maybe Gus Grissom believed this for whatever reason and passed the thought along to his family. [This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited April 13, 2005).] IP: Logged |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 12300
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted April 13, 2005 08:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dtemple:
Did Grissom sign anything regarding his taking the spacesuit?
From Grissom artifacts pulled from Hall of Fame: quote:
NASA spokesman Robert Jacobs told collectSPACE that the agency has located the handwritten loan agreement between Grissom and NASA for use of the suit. Grissom borrowed the suit for his son's show-and-tell presentation in mid-1965.
IP: Logged |
dtemple
Member Posts: 414
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted April 13, 2005 10:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA spokesman Robert Jacobs told collectSPACE that the agency has located the handwritten loan agreement between Grissom and NASA for use of the suit. Grissom borrowed the suit for his son's show-and-tell presentation in mid-1965.
This document should do a lot toward settling the matter.
[This message has been edited by dtemple (edited April 13, 2005).] [This message has been edited by dtemple (edited April 13, 2005).] IP: Logged |
