posted 09-28-2006 11:25 PM               

After several years of on and off research of this artifact I came to realize that it was actually his flown helmet. I have photographic evidence to prove this. In addition I have photographic evidence to prove that according to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum's records the helmet they claim to be flown is his training helmet.

After all this time I still can't figure out why they would have been switched.

I will be posting photos to back up my claim here and would appreciate any thoughts and opinions on the legality of owning and future sale of this artifact.

posted 10-01-2006 05:02 AM               

To address the legality of ownership, the Smithsonian does not automatically own every artifact. They have the right of first refusal. So if they don't want an artifact, it can be sold to the public.

If the Smithsonian's records show that they should have item XYZ, Serial Number 123, in their inventory, and they do indeed have that item, they're happy. At some time they must have been offered your helmet and decided it was not needed in their collection. It may have appeared on a list as item ABC, Serial Number 456, along with 100 other items. But still they decided it wasn't needed. So it would have been sold at a government or contractor sale. It would be nice to have the full trail of ownership for the artifact, but that's often not possible.

As far as the mix-up, I would bet it happened at NASA when the inventory and paperwork for disposition of some items was being prepared. Or more likely Cooper's helmet, used on the last Mercury flight, was retained at NASA for integration studies with the "new" Gemini spacecraft. After being downgraded to training status for those studies, its historic connection could easily have been lost.

I commend you for your research, which has allowed an obscure artifact to tell its story and be recognized for its true historic value.

posted 10-01-2006 08:37 PM               

If I were a designer making this modification, I'd want to test it with any available equipment to make sure the best solution was found. Using a "real" Mercury flight helmet, not a training unit, would round out the test results from the candidate Gemini helmet designs. A flown helmet would have to be downgraded to training status for this kind of testing.

posted 10-02-2006 10:06 AM               

After years of conjecture (which never led anywhere) and bouncing this off of "qualified experts" to no avail I think you've finally put this matter to rest.

posted 03-04-2007 12:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
Price change ----> only $300K now!

---

posted 03-04-2007 01:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Mather:
Ok. No bids at $150k. Here's an idea. Double it... they won't be expecting that!

---

posted 03-04-2007 04:57 PM               

I also have no doubt that NASA could possibly have gotten the identities of the 2 helmets mixed up...

posted 03-04-2007 08:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lunar rock nut:
It's not nice to fool around with National Treasure.......

---

Had this been sitting in a museum display (or worse, its archives), the helmet's true (or at least, potential) nature might have been completely missed to history and the wrong helmet might forever be labeled as the flown artifact (not that the helmet in the Smithsonian's possession is being re-labeled, to my knowledge, but through his posts here and on eBay, more people are now aware of the possibility).

I would hope whoever purchases the helmet would loan it for public display, or at the least, loan it to the Smithsonian for further research into which artifact is the flown helmet.

With regards to title, this helmet hasn't exactly been hidden from view, having been advertised in a 1993 Superior Galleries auction catalog more than a decade ago and before that, appearing in the New York Times. In addition, the current seller states that the helmet was brought to the attention of the Smithsonian, whose spacesuit curator acknowledged it as an authentic Mercury helmet used by Cooper. Were there any questions about it being government property, one might expect there would have been some action taken then, if not earlier when it was originally offered for sale in the early 90s.

posted 03-04-2007 08:25 PM            

To my layman's eyes, the photographic evidence presented above does seem very persuasive that the helmet owned is the same helmet as the one worn in the black and white photo of Cooper (which I am not sure whether was taken on launch day in the flight-used suit - and it is not stated above).

The photographic evidence given that it was in fact the same helmet worn on the flight seems to be the color frame of flight day suit-up. That image shows mostly the other side of the helmet, so the rubber flashing, indentation and paint blob evidence is not visible. The top felt tip marking is, but not in sufficient detail for me to see if it is identical.

In short, I'd say there appears to be strong evidence that this is the helmet used in that black and white portrait (which may have been taken in training long before the day of flight, unless others know otherwise?) but no conclusive evidence presented in this thread that it is the exact same helmet as in the flight-day color still, not simply an identically-manufactured, same-model helmet.

posted 03-04-2007 09:35 PM               

From what I have learned, the Mercury astronauts were issued 3 helmets each for their flights. A training unit, a backup, and a flight helmet. In the case of Cooper improvements were made to the mercury helmet which were later implemented on his MA-9 flight. All mercury astronauts flying orbital and sub-orbital flights up until MA-9 wore helmets with a pressurized gas sealed visor.

Beginning with Cooper's flight and continuing through the entire Gemini program all crews wore mechanical visor sealed helmets (I'm not sure about the Borman/Lovell mission).

What that boils down to is, Cooper started out with a gas sealed training helmet and then finished out the mercury program using a mechanical visor back up and flight helmet.

In my composite I show all three helmets.

The early gas sealed helmet is easy enough to tell apart from the other two. But the two mechanical visor helmets differ enough from each other to differentiate them as well. My guess is that the back up is either in the NASM archives or in Huntsville.

As for the photo of Cooper, it was taken April 30, 1963, 15 days before his mission. Here is the description from the GRIN website:

Astronaut L. Gordon Cooper in white room, waiting for Terminal Countdown Demonstrations Test (TCDT) activities to resume in preparation for his Mercury-Atlas 9 launch.

posted 03-04-2007 11:12 PM            

Presumably incorrectly labeled as: Date Taken: 05/17/63 and examining a 10x8 NASA photo I have of this image -

posted 03-04-2007 11:59 PM               

Please check my ebay revision for more observations.

The date on that photo you found is in error as his flight was on May 15. This after the original flight date of April 14 launch day was scrubbed.

My original search for photos of Cooper in the helmet were in 1995, pre-internet so I had to send off for photos from the Johnson Space Center. I asked the researcher, last name Gentry (super nice guy), to send me any shots of Cooper in a training helmet. I was frustrated because all of the photos he sent me(and there were lots) showed him wearing the earlier mechanical visor helmet, only one training shot sent to me showed him in his original gas sealed helmet. Because the helmet I purchsed was pretty close to the one in the photos I was convinced that I at least had some kind of real mercury helmet used by Cooper at some time.

I stopped looking for a while after that.

Only much later when the internet took off it occurred to me to look again always putting the word "training" in my search.

I think NASA was only putting up bits of things at the time and I saw some low res stuff that had possibilities.

On a search a few years ago I came across the April 30 photo. That's when the whole thing occurred to me.

I'm not saying that there couldn't be something out there that could knock down my argument, but if there is I haven't seen it.

posted 03-05-2007 01:38 AM               

The April 30 photo is the only photo I've seen that shows the small NASA logo on the visor mechanism.

posted 03-05-2007 09:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Were there any questions about it being government property, one might expect there would have been some action taken then, if not earlier when it was originally offered for sale in the early 90s.

---

1. If Gikov's claim is valid, they might find the situation to be embarrassing. Besides, if a mistake was made, it was made not by the current staff but by their predecessors, so why rock the boat?

2. The staff at the museum are overworked and underpaid. Besides, they have more items than they have need for in their displays, and an insufficient budget to maintain what they already have.

3. The Smithsonian takes its cues from NASA. Has this been brought to the attention of Louis Parker, their director of artifacts?

4. The fact that someone "claims" to have an important "flown" helmet, might not compel them to act, whereas a high dollar sale of same just might.

5. One should look to the many examples of vintage warplanes that have been lost and then discovered and restored at great expense by private individuals only to have the Air Force (or other appropriate agency) show up and say, "Thanks for finding our plane, it will look lovely in our museum"

6. The dispute over ownership and disposition of Gus Grissom's suit is perhaps the best example of what might happen should the sale of this helmet draw additional public interest to its background.

quote:

---

Originally posted by space1:
To address the legality of ownership, the Smithsonian does not automatically own every artifact. They have the right of first refusal. So if they don't want an artifact, it can be sold to the public.

---

While none of these factors pose any real threat to Gikov right now, anyone laying out $300,000 or more to purchase it would most certainly have to take them seriously.

posted 03-05-2007 10:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam S:
This is correct, however NASA has never sold any of its hardware to the public.

---

NASA has routinely sold its spent hardware, flown or otherwise, to the public through government surplus sales and auctions. Granted, these sales are primarily intended for scrap material dealers, but this is how such artifacts as Columbia's SILTS pod instrumentation, STS-35's BBXRT telescope assembly and more than one Gemini Astronaut Maneuvering Unit (the predecessor to the MMU) became part of private collections.

These sales were also how the late Charlie Bell amassed his collection, which later led to hundreds of Apollo and earlier era artifacts being auctioned after his passing.

posted 03-05-2007 11:34 AM               

While attending the AHOF induction and ceremonies during the past several years, I took opportunity (as a teacher) to visit the Educator's Resource Center at KSC.

Gordo's spacesuit was hanging for up close examination. To touch carefully and feel the real deal. To touch history. To dream.

Last May, I made my usual visit to the teacher's resource room, and Gordo's suit was gone! I asked the director and she said that someone from NASA had made a visit, realized what it was, and reclaimed it.

It was getting very fragile and probably needed conservation, too.

But I did have my up close and personal time with Gordo's suit...

posted 03-05-2007 12:12 PM               

What I meant to say was that NASA would never have gone to the trouble of selling off a single item such as a helmet, especially one directly connected to one of the "Original 7" astronauts or to any of the later more historically significant missions.

It is my personal belief that our first effort to leave our planet and visit other worlds is, historically speaking, mankind's single most important achievement in the last thousand years. To try to put a monetary value on any of the significant artifacts associated with this effort is difficult to say the least.

posted 03-05-2007 12:29 PM               

Of course that's risky.....

posted 03-05-2007 01:57 PM               

Joe Schmitt is still around - and he very likely handled those helmets a lot, and probably suited up Gordo for his flight.

I last saw Joe on 25 August last year, at a retirement party for my former boss (we were all suit techs).

posted 03-05-2007 02:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam S:
What I meant to say was that NASA would never have gone to the trouble of selling off a single item such as a helmet, especially one directly connected to one of the "Original 7" astronauts or to any of the later more historically significant missions.

---

Once the Smithsonian passes on an artifact and before it is surplussed by NASA, the space agency may offer it for sale to its own museum network. The prices assigned rarely if ever reflect the value of the item historically (nor what it cost NASA to procure or produce), and after a set number of years (I believe its currently 14) the museum may do with the item as it pleases (e.g. sell it to fund improvements to their other collections).

For a recent example, NASA JSC offered museums flown ACES suits (i.e. the orange "pumpkin" launch and reentry suits worn by shuttle astronauts) for less than $100 each (and before any eager collectors start calling NASA, it is my understanding that to participate you must be an accredited and recognized museum where the item will be placed on public display for the years specified).

Thus there exists a process by which NASA sells individual artifacts that are historically significant, albeit to museums, but even that stipulation leaves open a means for the item to eventually enter the market.

posted 03-06-2007 12:00 AM               

Remember, the bottom line on value is based on what someone will pay for a particular object on a particular day.