|
Author
|
Topic: Segmentation of Skylab II flown bungee cords
|
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:33 PM
   
I'm really disappointed to see that Lousma's three Skylab II flown bungee cords have been totally destroyed to make salable fragment presentations. - The metal springs have been cut into individual coils or tiny lengths of spring.
- Each of the fastening studs from the ends has been pulled out and sold individually.
- The beta cloth straps at the end have been cut into small squares.
- Even the threads that held the straps together have been mounted in presentation cards.
I admit that these bungee straps were not the most glamorous items of flown equipment but they still deserve to be kept intact. |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:33 PM
Now they're even less glamorous. I have a large flown AFRSI blanket from Discovery. If I were to microsize it, I could probably make thousands of those tacky displays. But just because you can, that doesn't mean you should. I had quite a bidwar getting it, but I'm happy because this is the guy I outbid, and so far he has microsized practically every item from that auction — even a roll of unflown insulation tape. What a waste. The people doing this must not actually care about the hobby nor collecting space artifacts. Personally I could never fathom the thought of breaking apart any item other than a large, thin insulation blanket, a payload bay liner, or something similar. The point of collecting isn't to make a profit (there's much better professions for that), but to preserve. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:34 PM
Precisely my rational for purchase of lot 197 Apollo 13 parachute material during last weeks Regency auction - to keep it out of the hands of the micro-trinket producers. It is my intention (and that of several other collectors) to continue targeting items for acquisition which may be otherwise attractive to individuals who are predisposed to cutting them up (or at least in our pursuit make it economically disadvantageous for them to do so). |
JasonB
Member Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Spaceguy5:
The point of collecting isn't to make a profit (there's much better professions for that), but to preserve.
As I remember hearing somewhere-"WHOA Nellie!!!" While I admire that your actually buying stuff to preserve instead of just whining about it like a lot of people do, I don't think you can say that someone who does this doesn't care about collecting or space items. Otherwise you'd have to say Spaceflori, the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, and a whole slew of other people don't care about collecting too. That obviously wouldn't be true and it seems your selectively choosing who to criticize. While I personally wouldn't cut anything up you have to look at it like they're the ones who own it. If they choose to eat it it's their business. They may have their own reason for doing it which have nothing to do with anyone else and which they don't need to explain to anyone else. I think its great that your buying things to preserve them but just because someone else does something different with them doesn't mean they care less. |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:35 PM
Actually I am less than thrilled about Spaceflori doing it as well, although at least for the most part, items on Florian's website are insulation blankets. Plus as much as I don't like some of the artifacts chosen, the ASF auctions put the money towards a good cause. Even NASA has cut up insulation blankets, mylar foil, and payload bay liners for presentations (Personally, I own mylar from STS-39 and a liner from STS-61 that came from NASA presenations). What separates these items is that they're very large, flat, and more or less homogenous.You have a point that people in a capitalist society are entitled to legally do whatever they want with their possessions, although it is bothersome to have the opportunity to own a very nice artifact taken from a serious collector just because someone else wants to make a few extra bucks. Like I said, there's much more efficient (and much less damaging) ways to make money. |
JBWSpace
Member Posts: 60
From: San Diego, Ca, USA
Registered: Nov 2010
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:35 PM
I agree that most of these historical item should not be broken up but not everybody can afford large complete artifacts. I have enough pieces of fragments to share with the smaller collectors and have put aside the best pieces for our families collection. Now my mother is benefiting from my father's seven years of hard work for North American Rockwell, a company that through him away for a lack of a diploma? He worked out many quality control issues thorough his career in the space industry but winded up with a small pension from General Dynamics who moved out of San Diego and screwed him out of a full pension. So isn't it funny how his collection of flown artifact can help support my mother after his passing. Does it hurt every time an artifact is cut YES! it does. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:35 PM
I am hoping the market reaches a saturation point soon with flown artifacts that have been chopped up, so this trend can come to an end. Some neat acrylics have been produced over the years, but it's sparked an industry of extreme slicing-and-dicing in order to turn a quick profit.When I see these presentations, I don't see space history. I see gross destruction of artifacts, done in pursuit of a dollar. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:36 PM
As many of you will know, my main business is selling meteorites: in this field, cutting up specimens so that many people can own a sample is the norm, and I see no problem with it. In this way, many more collectors and meteoricists can access the material.Now, I personally try to keep my flown bits large enough that their structures and functions are still obvious (check my website 'The Space Station') but I do appreciate that not everyone who'd like a space-flown item can afford to pay premium prices. I think it's a bit unfair to criticise either the people who make the less expensive displays or those who buy them... |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:36 PM
Personally, I'm quite poor, although that still hasn't stopped me from owning intact flown items. If you look around, you can find some nice deals. In fact really from what I've seen, many of the people selling cut up items are jacking the prices up quite higher than they paid originally. Whether it's cheaper or not is debatable. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-20-2011 01:36 PM
Saying someone can legally do what they like with a historical artifact because they bought it doesn't change whether or not it's the right thing to do.Personally I see a big difference between cutting up anonymous pieces of kapton foil (which were already torn from the spacecraft) or plain pieces of cloth, and cutting up whole pieces of flown equipment. I fully understand the principle of allowing people with small amounts to spend to buy a piece of flown material but there's no reason to resort to destroying complete artifacts to achieve this. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 10-20-2011 03:13 PM
What Chris said. I also think of kapton, cloth, etc in a different category than discrete flown objects. I hope that the community can avoid black or white thinking on this and recognize there are also shades of gray, but also that at some point this sort of hack and sell just becomes just really really tacky. To SpaceAholic on the Apollo 13 parachute: thank you. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-20-2011 04:04 PM
I agree that intact artifacts should not be chopped up and checklists should be kept together when possible. I think scrapping the bungee cord so that every coil and piece is portioned out is absurd. While I would like to add some flown items to my collection, I simply can not afford them. I will not buy a tiny piece of a bungee cord to say I have a flown item. I would rather the item stay intact and belong to someone who will take care of it than to be an accessory to the destruction of an item of historical importance, just so I can say I own a flown piece of Apollo -- or Skylab or shuttle. As others have said, I have no problem with kapton foil, or thermal insulation, or payload bay liners being microsized to sell, I do have a problem with intact pieces being cut up. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-20-2011 05:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by David Bryant:
As many of you will know, my main business is selling meteorites: in this field, cutting up specimens so that many people can own a sample is the norm, and I see no problem with it.
Would you agree, however, that there are some meteorites that are so nice as a full specimen that it makes sense to leave them intact, so future generations can enjoy them as a whole piece? |
p51
Member Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 10-20-2011 05:43 PM
Let's see if I get this right. Some of you are upset because a piece of something is cut up into still smaller pieces. Wasn't it already an incomplete part to start with before it got cut up? What's the difference between someone cutting it up into smaller parts than the person cutting a far larger item up into the part you're griping about? I could see if someone had, say, a complete spacesuit cut into little pieces that would bug people. But if you had, say, a patch of fabric off the back of a glove from the same suit, it's already cut up. Or am I missing something here? It seems painfully obvious to me. To argue otherwise seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy. But in the end, it's a free society. You own it? Then, you can cut it up, set it on fire, paint it pink; whatever you want. And I'm so grateful for that fact. |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-20-2011 05:52 PM
We all agree if you own something, it's yours and you can do with it what you want. However, many of us are sick and tired of seeing truly rare and unique artifacts being purchased for the express purpose of being made into trinkets.While I'm a diehard freemarket capitalist and support everyone making a profit, there has to be a point where not every flown piece isn't cut up into micro-fragments and sold so the dealer can make money. The fact is that most of the dealers who cut up artifacts are only interested in money and couldn't care less about the history of the space program or protecting rare artifacts. To them it's simply a business and way way to max out profits while the market is hot. I agree with you that a cut up piece of fabric, kapton, ablator or other similar piece isn't diminshed by cutting it up further and in fact gives many beginning collectors the chance to add a rare piece to their collections. I think this whole micro sectioning of artifacts has gotten a little stupid and at what point will rare pieces stop getting hacked up? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-20-2011 06:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by p51:
Wasn't it already an incomplete part to start with before it got cut up?
Not always. We've seen plenty of complete and historic flown checklists torn apart and sold page-by-page, in the interest of making money. Those items will never be intact again and an historic artifact is essentially destroyed. |
p51
Member Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 10-20-2011 06:49 PM
Space collecting isn't my primary interest in collecting, mostly because I'd never be able to afford the items I'd really want (complete pieces of flight gear like jackets, flight suits or helmets, for example) and owning a 1x1 mm square of tape that might have been flown on a mission and is now encased in acrylic could easily be perceived by many as more than a little silly. I've recently realized why astronaut signatures are such a big deal in this realm of collecting, because it's the only thing most people are ever going to have, regardless of their checkbook size.I primarily collect items from US military history, mostly the 20th century. And owning a tiny piece of something in most cases isn't desirable at all. You have a fragment, not the whole, and people normally don't shell out bucks for that (with the exception of something already destroyed, say pieces of a crashed airplane). But with space stuff, there's such a small amount of material to start with, so segmenting stuff is really the only way to go in most cases. It's tough not to snicker at the idea that buying a piece of cloth less than the size of a sheet of paper is "reserving the item" but cutting the same item into smaller pieces isn't. quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
I am hoping the market reaches a saturation point soon with flown artifacts that have been chopped up, so this trend can come to an end.
I can't imagine you're going see this go away. "Quick profit" is an ancient concept, one you'll never see the end of. You're NEVER going to get that genie back in the bottle. But as for "destruction of artifacts," if it wasn't the complete item before the person who cut it up broke out the scissors (and that hasn't been the case with hardly any of the examples mentioned in this thread so far), it's just making an already cut item just a little more so. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-20-2011 07:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by p51:
But as for "destruction of artifacts," if it wasn't the complete item before the person who cut it up broke out the scissors (and that hasn't been the case with hardly any of the examples mentioned in this thread so far), it's just making an already cut item just a little more so.
As an example take the aforementioned lot 197 - which in its existing form contains previously segmented artifacts... profit motivated "micronization" advocates would have no problem converting that letter's attached contents to individual displays. But consider just how significant the affixed parachute nylon is in the context of a letter originated by the NASA engineer responsible for the Apollo Earth Landing System (John Kiker) thanking Theodore Knacke - the Northrop Ventura Engineer who designed the Apollo parachute and who in a broader historical perspective is widely regarded as the father of many modern aerodynamic decelerators (parachutes). Irreplaceable and priceless. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-20-2011 11:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by p51:
But as for "destruction of artifacts," if it wasn't the complete item before the person who cut it up broke out the scissors (and that hasn't been the case with hardly any of the examples mentioned in this thread so far), it's just making an already cut item just a little more so.
Another person made this analogy to me off-list. Think of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They aren't complete in their original form, and are just tattered remnants of what they used to be. As such, what harm would there be in cutting them up into smaller pieces, so every museum in the world could have a small piece of the scrolls? Perhaps each museum could get one word each... or, if you really want to stretch it out, one letter each. After all, "it's just making an already cut item just a little more so." Seems silly, I know. But now think of a fragment of a map Columbus might have used to find the new world. Would that be worth cutting up? Of course not. Now what about a checklist that Neil Armstrong used to land on another "new world?" I can think of a few dealers who would have absolutely no problem slicing up that one. As collectors we are simply stewards of these artifacts for future generations. Our goal should be to preserve items as well as possible, so no further harm comes to them. Scraps of foil and beta cloth are probably not hugely important. But when you start slicing up pieces of hardware and checklists, where does the good stewardship end and the profiteering begin? |
J.L
Member Posts: 674
From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 10-20-2011 11:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
As collectors we are simply stewards of these artifacts for future generations. Our goal should be to preserve items as well as possible, so no further harm comes to them. Scraps of foil and beta cloth are probably not hugely important. But when you start slicing up pieces of hardware and checklists, where does the good stewardship end and the profiteering begin?
Brilliantly stated... |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-21-2011 01:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by p51:
Some of you are upset because a piece of something is cut up into still smaller pieces. Wasn't it already an incomplete part to start with before it got cut up? ... But in the end, it's a free society. You own it? Then, you can cut it up, set it on fire, paint it pink; whatever you want.
If you read the posts above I think you'll see that most people agree with the idea that bits of kapton foil or anonymous pieces of insulation blanket etc can be cut into smaller pieces. Just read what people said.The problem is when people start taking complete intact items of hardware and effectively destroying them. Forever. As for the free society bit. That's great in theory but in practice just because someone can do what they want with what they buy doesn't mean they should, or that you would want them to. If some rich collector decided to start buying up all the surviving P-51 Mustangs from WWII then cut them into tiny pieces would you be delighted by that? I doubt it. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-21-2011 04:05 AM
Cutting each bungee coil individually is absolutely ridiculous. It could have least been cut into segments.I agree that Kapton foil, heat shield, etc., are okay in small displays, but cutting up an intact item should not happen. |
ApolloAlex
Member Posts: 390
From: Yeovil, England
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 10-21-2011 04:30 AM
It is for the individual to decide what they do with their collection but for me I couldn't do it. On the one hand I have spent a long time on my collection plus on the other I couldn't bring myself to cut up any of my artifacts. I feel that as soon as you start cutting something up it loses its character and for me its appeal even if it does become more affordable. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-21-2011 04:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
I agree that Kapton foil, heat shield, etc., are okay in small displays, but cutting up an intact item should not happen.
Even when original lucites are destroyed in the process? |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-21-2011 04:56 AM
In the past when I saw nice flown artifacts being sold at auction I was confident that they were likely going into a collection of where they would be treasured.At 'worst' they were maybe being bought just for later resale at a higher price, in which case they would still be looked after in the meantime. I have no problem with that. Now, however, I realize that most of the artifacts this particular buyer acquired in the last Heritage auction were destined either for breakup (at best) or irreversible destruction. When the next space auction comes along I'll have this thought at the back of my mind as each item sells - is that flown artifact now going to be destroyed? Since all the auctions are anonymous I have no way of knowing if the bidder on an item is one intent on destruction or not, and in any case I certainly can't afford to buy items just to preserve them from this fate. It's not a nice feeling. |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 10-21-2011 05:47 AM
Some auctions are not anonymous. Like I stated earlier, I know for a -fact- that the seller who split up this cord is the same person who bought a bunch of artifacts from a Lunar Legacies auction I participated in (all of which ended up on eBay in pieces), and nearly won my AFRSI blanket as well. The scary thing though about AFRSI blankets is that they contain very fine particles which can be hazardous for your lungs (a reason why when I made a display for it, I didn't remove it from the original bag). Shuttle tiles also contain some pretty fine particles. I wonder if the people who microsize those take that into account. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 10-21-2011 06:03 AM
I've said my piece. But one last thought: the only way to "punish" slice and dice sellers is to boycott what they try to foist off on the public. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And tell newbies why you don't like it so they'll be less tempted to buy such crap (i.e. moral suasion). I see from the eBay pages there aren't a lot of bids. Good. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 10-21-2011 07:47 AM
Very strong words: and unnecessarily harsh, in my opinion. In the case of meteorites, they are hardly ever left intact: like the Apollo Moon rocks, they are routinely sliced up for analysis and for various bodies to add to their collections. Just a few that display impressive flowlines or regmaglypts are left largely intact. And, like space artifacts, the vast majority of meteorites are hidden from public view in museum archives. I do agree that the EBay sales highlighted above do seem to take the process to extremes, but feel that people like Jerry Czubinski allow many more people to own something that links them directly to the space program. Furthermore, Jerry's displays are tasteful and attractive: they turn the small pieces of cloth or foil into a collectable work of art. I have been told the same thing about my aviation and space displays by astronauts and aviation veterans: their opinion, I have to confess, carries more weight with me than that of some of the posters above... |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-21-2011 08:00 AM
Meteorites are a case apart in my opinion. They start out as surviving fragments of the original parent body. They're not artifacts, and meteorites have always been sold by weight.Most posts above have also accepted that displays created using kapton foil, anonymous beta cloth material, payload bay liners etc are fine. I don't believe that David, Jerry or Florian have ever used a significant intact flown piece of equipment as the basis of their presentations, nor do I believe they ever would. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 10-21-2011 08:11 AM
You're quite right: I wouldn't... |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 10-21-2011 10:44 AM
I wouldn't either... However I feel parts of the above posts are quite pathetic. There are around 80 million Americans and probably a billion worldwide (20%) basically accusing us of organized crime and fraud because they believe the US never went to the moon. Kids believe Tom Hanks went on Apollo 13. That is the major problem not some dealers (though I agree in parts that there are things sliced up that shouldn't be). I would suggest some of the above posters go out and try to eliminating these 80 million wrong thoughts first before starting such a discussion about preserving history. There is probably not a single museum in the world that can display all their treasures, mostly 80% or more is hidden forever in the vaults and attics. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-21-2011 11:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaceflori:
I wouldn't either...
Except for the Apollo 8 checklists I presume? It's painful to see the "map" for mankind's first journey away from the planet being torn apart and sold piece-by-piece. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-21-2011 12:29 PM
Do you think the "dicers and slicers" influence auction values? What I mean is that the item is perhaps sold at a higher price than it may normally have been because someone could potentially make a good profit from it's dissection?I would like to make it clear that I have no problem with small lucite displays of items that were originally small items, as I own several myself. But I don't agree with already intact artifacts being chopped about. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-21-2011 03:49 PM
Yes - it will continue to drive up prices on the increasingly rarer intact artifacts... this is what I was alluding to in my earlier post - with the reduction in availability of whole items via aggressive acquisition (and being selective on who material is subsequently resold/traded to) by those of use who wish to counter the activities of the "slicer and dicers," market psychology with its attendant law of supply/demand should take hold. The premium prices that will have to be paid for an intact artifact on balance should be greater then whatever hypothetical profitability could be derived from conversion to micro-trinkets. Also think perceptions about provenance will come into play over time which will further erode any current value these trinkets may have. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 10-21-2011 04:10 PM
Just to further elaborate on Scott's point, which I agree with. The "hypothetical profitability" of sliced and diced artifacts will plummet if prospective buyers of such products are dissuaded from buying them because they are seen as undesirable. That's where moral suasion enters in. If the collecting community makes its moral (or aesthetic) disapproval known, newbies will avoid those things, the price that sliced and diced products will fetch will be reduced, and the slicers and dicers themselves will not be as willing to bid up the prices over what responsible collectors would be willing to pay. At least in theory. |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-21-2011 04:38 PM
Obviously there were many artifacts removed from every flown Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, some pieces cut up and put into NASA and contractor lucites and resins, back in the 60's and 70's. But these small pieces weren't whole artifacts, they started out life as fragments already.When the market is saturated with micro sized fragments, I think the trend will end, like all trends eventually do. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-21-2011 05:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
Obviously there were many artifacts removed from every flown Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, some pieces cut up and put into NASA and contractor lucites and resins, back in the 60's and 70's.
You are correct. However, it should also be remembered that some of these items weren't necessarily cut up with the sole intention of creating lucites. In the case of heat shield segments, for example, pieces were cut out of the heat shields to analyze the amount of ablation that occurred during re-entry, looking for any patterns to the stresses encountered by the shield. As such, the "cutting" served an important scientific purpose. Those fragments were then used to create the presentation pieces, given to astronauts, employees, contractors, etc. quote:
When the market is saturated with micro sized fragments, I think the trend will end, like all trends eventually do.
I hope you are correct. Given the choice, I would rather see an historic artifact remain intact rather than see it destroyed just so I can own a tiny piece of it. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 10-21-2011 06:03 PM
Okay, let's hear some offers: I have several complete blankets flown aboard various STS missions.Or would you prefer a 15cm x 10cm section at a fraction of the price? Framed, with full provenance... |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 10-21-2011 06:08 PM
Personally, I'd save up for the complete blanket (and yes, with the intent of keeping it intact). However, as I said earlier, I don't think cutting blankets into (reasonably sized, not microsized) pieces is unethical as the blankets are naturally flat, very large, and homogenous in nature. Besides, even NASA has cut up flown blankets for free employee presentations. My mom has one with a piece of mylar from STS-39. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-21-2011 07:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by David Bryant:
Or would you prefer a 15cm x 10cm section at a fraction of the price? Framed, with full provenance...
Do the complete blankets lack provenance? |
advertisement