# More to Keeping Shuttle Parts & Regs **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 3, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-to-keeping-shuttle-parts-regs/152485 "2003-02-03T13:53:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-to-keeping-shuttle-parts-regs/152485/1 "2003-02-03T13:53:06Z")
Bibliophage closed the thread prematurely without the full story to answer the question: It was pointed out on the Fox coverage last night that the removal of any aircraft piece from an investigation can lead to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000. I can’t believe I am quoting the Fox network, but their coverage was quite informative. Besides, if you have any respect the astronauts who lost their lives in the tragedy, wouldn’t you rather help NASA’s investigation than have bragging rights to a morbid souvenir? (Of course, you couldn’t really brag about it, could you?) Hope you’ll do the right thing and notify the proper authorities about your piece of the investigation. - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-to-keeping-shuttle-parts-regs/152485/2 "2003-02-03T15:27:45Z")
> **[Shuttle Challenger debris seller convicted | collectSPACE](http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-082300a.html)** > > Charles Starowesky of Somerset, Ohio pled guilty Tuesday in a U.S. District Court after attempting to sell a small piece of the wreckage from the space shuttle Challenger. > [@](#): > > August 23 – Charles Starowesky of Somerset, Ohio pled guilty Tuesday in a U.S. District Court after attempting to sell a small piece of the wreckage from the Space Shuttle Challenger. > > As first reported by collectSPACE, Starowesky posted the 6" x 6" x 2.5" thermal tile on October 28, 1999, to the auction website eBay. In his lot description, Starowesky explained he had “pulled [the fragment] from the water of the Atlantic Ocean” as a member of the first U.S. Coast Guard recovery team to respond to the explosion. He offered the tile as the “ultimate Christmas gift for the space enthusiast or collector.” > > After nearly four days of accepting bids (to the tune of $331.00) and receiving national attention, eBay closed the auction at the request of NASA. The space agency then launched an investigation through their Office of Criminal Investigations. > > Almost 10 months later, Starowesky stood before Judge John D. Holshuh facing one count of possession of U.S. Government property, with the intent to convert it to his own use. Pleading guilty to violating Title 18, Section 641 of the United States Code (Theft of Government Property), Starowesky was sentenced to two years probation. He pled ignorance of the law and got probation, but that was back when e-Bay auctions, and the Internet, and shuttle disasters were all new, and besides, it was 13 years afterwards. I doubt whether anybody could get away with pleading ignorance of the law today, not to mention the sheer egregiousness putting the stuff up for sale the day of the disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-to-keeping-shuttle-parts-regs/152485/3 "2003-02-03T15:36:52Z")
And they’re not kidding about the chemicals, either. I know, it sounds like one of those Roswell/MIB things, “Don’t touch the object”, but… [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/02/sprj.colu.toxic.debris/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/02/sprj.colu.toxic.debris/index.html) > [@](#): > > Four compounds from shuttle can harm on contact > Sunday, February 2, 2003 Posted: 10:54 PM EST (0354 GMT) > > …The compounds are: two forms of hydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide and a pure form of ammonia. > > Raw hydrazine fueled the shuttle’s auxiliary power units, which generated hydraulic pressure for various functions in the shuttle. > > Another form of the chemical, monomethyl hydrazine, fueled the shuttle’s maneuvering systems while it was in space, said Randy Azera, a former NASA engineer and consultant to CNN. > > Both forms of hydrazine are clear, flammable liquids. They can irritate the eyes, skin and respiratory system and cause vomiting, diarrhea, tremors, convulsions and permanent damage to internal organs. They are considered “immediately dangerous to life” at a concentration of 50 parts per million. > > They are not considered to have warning signs of contact but can be detected in the blood of an exposed person. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-to-keeping-shuttle-parts-regs/152485/4 "2003-02-05T17:27:18Z")
Agree with **Jinx** that citing a NASA warning that conduct X is illegal is not necessarily the same as proving it or showing why. Still not sure the question’s been answered. N.B. I’m certainly not advocating any such behavior, but I haven’t seen a cite to the specific statute, etc. that backs NASA’s position or the “aircraft investigation” position. I don’t say an applicable one doesn’t exist. The Coast Guardsman with the Challenger debris/theft of federal property may or may not be an appropriate precedent, as I’d imagine he took the tile from the territorial waters of the U.S. (Probably also violated C.G. Regs., etc.). Does it make any difference if the debris came through your roof, or landed on your farm? Does the law of salvage/flotsam/jetsam have anything to say about this? Is the debris a deodand? I strongly suspect that at least the gov’t would say that any such common law rights are trumped by the Supremacy Clause, but I’d be curious to know exactly the chapter and verse.