|
Author
|
Topic: New York Times: Recovered Sputnik parts
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-18-2007 09:32 AM
   
From The New York Times: For nearly 50 years, Bob Morgan and his family have kept a box full of charred debris that they swear fell out of the early morning sky on Dec. 8, 1957."My dad said it was glowing so bright that you couldn't look at it with your naked eye," Mr. Morgan said of the pieces of metal and plastic that came to rest behind his grandfather's house in Encino, Calif. "So they grabbed some sunglasses until this thing had cooled down." Although no one has ever confirmed what the objects were, Mr. Morgan has long believed that he has a piece — or 13 pieces to be exact — of one of the most famous objects ever to fly: Sputnik I, the first man-made object to orbit the earth. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-18-2007 09:49 AM
It may be worth noting that LSD started becoming recreationally popular in the mid 50's as well... |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-18-2007 11:50 AM
Doubts do arise, I am sure, because they do look to be significantly larger and in much better condition than much-better-authenticated items that have survived re-entry, such as the apparent piece of Sputnik IV that was recovered in Wisconsin in 1960, a replica of which is shown here. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2007 01:58 PM
Over at HobbySpace.com, Clark Lindsey has also linked to The New York Times article with the comment... If they can prove this, they would have the most valuable space collectibles outside of Apollo 11 Moon rocks I hadn't given much thought to that aspect until Lindsey raised it. I'm curious what others think: where would bona fide Sputnik I parts rank in the space market hierarchy? Would there be a disparity between parts of the actual satellite and the rocket stage that lofted it to orbit? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2007 02:21 PM
Authentic Sputnik spacecraft components would ultimately out-value lunar samples collected on any mission; it's only a matter of time before a proliferation of lunar samples are returned with improved space access. The Sputnik and its booster achieved first orbit so any components from either of them would be co-equally prized in my eyes. Their combined mass was a lot less then the Apollo spacecraft — any surviving material's available would be relatively scarce and therefore more valuable then even Apollo 11 artifacts. |
fuzzfoot
Member Posts: 177
From:
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 02-20-2007 01:00 PM
Interesting questions posed here...Personally, I wouldn't purchase Sputnik booster parts. If I were to purchase anything from Sputnik, it would have to be from what everyone universally recognizes as Sputnik: "That cool looking silver ball with the insect-like antennae," i.e. the orbiter itself. I agree with Scott that someday, probably not in our lifetime, lunar samples will be readily available to anyone who wants to buy them and may in fact become novelties. However, there is no question that the hardware itself will eventually be priceless. Just look at Wright brothers' hardware! At this point in our history I do not believe that Sputnik hardware would fetch more than Apollo 11 hardware. I believe that Apollo 11 hardware has the "American Pride" factor and will remain "holy grail" until it is leaped by a manned mission to mars. I don't think there were millions of families glued to TV sets to watch Sputnik coverage. Or 'where were you when Sputnik orbited?' On the other hand... Apollo 11 hardware may be a generational instance of pride and future generations may look at rarity vs. history? There is no right answer to this question at this time. Fun to think about though. Sure, I'd pay $300 for a Sputnik booster lucite... |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2007 02:01 PM
My perspective also takes into consideration that the Russian economy will continue to become robust and wealthy(er) Russians are going to want to reclaim (via market competition) artifacts which have leached out of their country - particuarly Soviet era cold-war items. |
fuzzfoot
Member Posts: 177
From:
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 02-20-2007 05:03 PM
Excellent point Scott. There does seem to be a worldwide trend of recovering homeland artifacts. We can see this now in countries like Canada and Australia who have all but banned exportation of most historical artifacts. Meteoritic material being a prime example.More recently, Russia has all but banned exportation of the famous Sikhote Alin meteorite. The price of which has jumped from .50 cents a gram to $2 a gram (for good specimens) over the last year because of this. I spoke with a Russian wholesale meteorite/mineral dealer in Tucson several weeks ago who confirmed that this will be the last shipment of Sikhote from him. I'm sure the same will hold true for Russian Space Artifacts. Now might be a good time to get that Soyuz hardware you've always wanted... |
advertisement