My wife is (jokingly) proposing to by this item off eBay for my Christmas present.
Apollo 11-17 Command Module Pyrex Porthole, ORIGINAL

What are the chances that this is a genuine command module hatch window from a moon mission?

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Given the vast number of misspellings in the description, I'd say the odds are low.

If you ever run about something you really consider to buy and you're not an expert, I recommend the forum of http://www.collectspace.com/

[added]

I see there's already a thread about this there:

http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000255.html

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Well if the authenticity of the window is in question, I guess that I’ll have to get something else for Christmas. On the other hand, the buy it now price was over $2000, so maybe my I can convince my wife to spend that much on me for something else.


Harald

Thanks for the link. Another interesting space related site to read.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

-Inner side: Made in U.S.A. Porthole number is #FL-4746.

anyway to check this bit out??

__________________
Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

It is most assuredly bogus.

The author makes a big point of telling us the pane is scarred from the heat of re-entry, but the only circular pane on the command module was the inner pane of the hatch window. It would not have been subject to re-entry flow.

The author mentions it is rock quartz, which is very different from Pyrex (a proprietary mixture of tempered silica).

The close-ups clearly show it was not manufactured to optical quality standards.

The part number FL-4746 is not an Apollo part number.

Apollo Pyrex panes were rolled in sheets, coated, and cut to the appropriate shape, then fit into their bezels. This is clearly a molded dome shape with bezel articulations molded directly into the material.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'm wondering if the "seller" would ruin a perfectly good piece of (whatever it was) in a misguided attempt to make it appear authentic.

Ok, legal question:

Say such a piece were actually recovered, somehow. Even after thirty-plus years, wouldn't it still be property of the Federal Government that they'd kinda want back?

I'm wondering if the "seller" would ruin a perfectly good piece of (whatever it was) in a misguided attempt to make it appear authentic.

Given that the seller appears to be unscrupulous, then I don't have faith in his motives. Even without the scarring, though, other features tell us it's not authentic.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Maybe.

NASA does sell excess and used material from time to time. NASA also gives pieces of hardware away to thier employees and thier contractors. Typically, NASA includes a discard slip of paper saying it is a give away. I've seen slips for stuff as small as a screw.

Since there isn't a discard slip, it makes me believe this is a fake.

Here's a photo of the Apollo 17 capsule. Post-mission. The "port-hole" is still there and it doesn't even look like the ebay item would fit in there.

Even after thirty-plus years, wouldn't it still be property of the Federal Government that they'd kinda want back?

If it's flown hardware, as the seller suggests, then it is definitely the property of the U.S. government. Whether they are willing to fight to get it back depends on how valuable it is to them. There are many space program items in the hands of private collectors, but because the items are generally ephemeral (e.g., strips of Mylar that fell off the CM after recovery) they are not sought by the original owner. The authentic glass from a flown CM would be valuable enough to want back.

If it's not flown hardware, ownership becomes somewhat more nebulous. The transfer of title to the government pursuant to a procurement contract is a formal thing accompanied by formalized acceptance papers and a set of standardized forms. Until formally accepted, it remains the property of the contractor. By this means the employees of the various contractors obtained cast-off or secondary hardware because its ownership was never transferred to the government.

However Apollo also involved development contracts whereby the government gave money to the contractors to develop technology, whether or not it eventually resulted in procurement of that technology. Ownership of the resulting material would be governed by the terms of the contract.

Lately the trend has been to allow private possession of government property on the condition that it be placed on public display.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I am surprised no one twigged on to this little bit of fluff:

The U.S. Apollo Missions were thought to be Highly Secretive.

By who?

__________________
The law requires that I answer no!

We can't tell you - it's a secret! Duh! :roll:

Ok, but other than that why do you think it's bogus?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Has anybody tried to tell the winning bidder that it's a piece of junk?

I thought about it, but I'm too busy to figure out how to reach him. So caveat emptor.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I don't suppose this could be the inner pane from Apollo1?

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Thanks -- that's what I'd suspected.

Anyone without access to a television, radio, or newspaper?

Has anyone reported this fraud to the web site?

__________________
---------------------------
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter neccessitatem."
William of Occam