NASA Johnson Space Center
Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Gary E. Lofgren
Interviewed by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal
Houston, Texas – 1 October 2009
Ross-Nazzal:
Today is October 1st, 2009. This interview with Dr. Gary Lofgren is
being conducted for the Johnson Space Center Oral History Project in
Houston, Texas. Jennifer Ross-Nazzal is the interviewer, assisted by
Sandra Johnson. Thanks again for coming in. We certainly appreciate
it. Know you’ve been busy. I thought we’d start by talking
today about the Mars Sample Return Project. Can you tell us about your
involvement in that in terms of preparing Building 31N?
Lofgren: Well,
the preparation to bring samples back from Mars has two issues. One
of them is planetary protection. In other words, is there anything on
Mars that we could bring back in the samples that could conceivably
be dangerous to life here on Earth? Nobody knows the answer to that
question. The answer is probably no, but the caution is that nobody
wants to really take the chance. So as a consequence there needs to
be a quarantine-type facility that those samples can be returned. That
facility has been conceptualized as to what the issues are with it.
Nobody has done a detailed architectural design. There’s been
conceptual designs, but not true building designs.
You compare this to a BL-4, which is the kind of facility where you
work with the most dangerous diseases like Ebola and those kinds of
highly contagious diseases. Those are studied in what they call a B[S]L
[Biosafety Level]-4 facility where the individuals work in suits that
have their own air supply, they’re totally contained with separate
air supply type suits, this is serious isolation for the people.
However, those kinds of facilities would not be good to return Mars
samples to because if you did put them in there and there was life,
but it wasn’t much different than what we have here on Earth,
which is a possibility if there is, you wouldn’t know the difference
because those samples would be immediately contaminated. There’s
no way to isolate them from the effects of life here on Earth.
This facility has to be able to do two things. It has to totally protect
the Martian samples from the Earth environment, but it also has to protect
the humans from the Martian samples. So this is a double duty. The two
aren’t totally compatible. That dual isolation concept, has not
been totally designed. People, conceptually they want to do that, but
how you’re actually going to do that has not yet been worked out
in detail. If you have a place where things are that might infect you,
you’d want to have them in a negative pressure relative to where
you are, so the air from you leaks in. But if you’ve got Martian
samples in there, you don’t want the samples coming in contact
with stuff from you that might leak in. You’ve got to have a double
barrier where stuff can leak in and stuff can’t leak out. You
can see the complication, because there’s got to be some kind
of buffer zone where both leak into it and that gets evacuated. It gets
complex when you try to figure out how to do both of those concepts
at the same time.
The idea is that you’re going to have to start building that facility,
designing it and building it, at least ten years before the samples
would come back, to give you time to truly design it, build it, test
it fully before the mission actually leaves. It’s a two-year or
three-year roundtrip mission. So to have it tested before it leaves,
that means if you start ten years ahead, you’ve got to be ready
seven years [before]—so it’s a very long lead time to do
that kind of facility. So that’s the big hurdle.
Like I say, nobody’s done the detailed design. A couple years
ago it looked like we might have a Mars mission in the 2018, 2020 timeframe.
So people hurried up and started thinking about this facility. I got
appointed to the Planetary Protection Committee, which deals with that
issue. I was listening to these discussions. Now all of a sudden in
the last couple years, the Mars program budget has been overrun by this
next mission that’s going, the Mars Science Lab is overrun by
$1 billion or something. It’s affected sample return.
Now sample return has been pushed off to 2025, so again everybody’s
relaxing again. There was this hurried rush to start thinking about
this building, and now there’s another five years to get ready
for that minimum. We’re not going to have to start doing that
till 2015 at the earliest. The pressure is off again. It seems like
every time the Mars mission gets closer to ten years, it gets postponed
again. It’s just happened several times, so it’s become
a joke in the community. “Oh, we’re getting close to ten
years. They’ve got to postpone it again.” Sure enough, it
seems to happen, one way or another. Something seems to happen to push
it off.
Then once you have this facility and you have the samples in it, and
then you start testing them. Sitting on the Planetary Protection Committee
is an interesting experience. Most of the people on this committee are
people who are in the business of protecting people from other stuff.
Ross-Nazzal: Like
public health?
Lofgren: Like public
health, or like B[S]L-4 facilities and this kind of thing. They’re
people who are very knowledgeable about how to protect and what can
be dangerous. But the interesting thing is that if somebody asked the
question, “Well, how would you verify that the samples are safe?”
They go, “Well, we don’t really know.” You’d
think that would be a very straightforward issue, but apparently in
the biological community it’s not a straightforward issue, because
how do you prove a negative? You always hear this. How do you prove
something isn’t? If you see something, you can prove whether it’s
good or bad. But if you don’t find anything, have you really not
found it, or are you just not good enough and you just didn’t
have good enough testing and you didn’t find it? How do you prove
a negative is difficult because you never know to what level you’ve
got to test it to prove a negative. It’s a tough question.
You try to get the people who need to do the passing on it, what kind
of tests they would do to verify this for sure, and they don’t
want to pin themselves down to what those tests would be, because they
can say they don’t know, and they will find out when they start
testing. It’s like “leave us alone, we’ll tell you
when we’re ready to tell you.” That doesn’t satisfy
the other part of the science community which wants to know when they’re
going to get samples and what condition the samples will be in after
these people have worked with them to study them. Will they be worth
doing science on after they get through with them?
That’s another one of the big issues. Will the biologists deal
with these samples or the planetary protection people deal with these
samples so extensively that there’s no good science left to do
on them, they will have contaminated them so badly that there’s
not much you can do with them, and that’s an issue. They say,
“No, that won’t happen,” but the rest of the community
isn’t so sure. It’s one of these little crossruff kinds
of things. If in fact they do verify that the samples are safe, then
they would leave this facility and go to a curation facility like we
have in 31N.
Ross-Nazzal: That’s
what you were primarily involved with?
Lofgren: Yes. Well,
I’m aware of all these other issues, but then you would then have
a facility not dissimilar from the one we have for lunar samples to
protect the Martian samples. It would probably be a very similar kind
of facility, but it would have to be a new facility. Well, depending
on how much sample we got. The first kinds of missions, they’re
talking about maybe a kilogram, a couple pounds of sample in a sample
return. For that you don’t need a whole building. They might be
able to isolate a portion of our existing building for that or build
a small annex or something, but that’s so far away that nobody
has really pinned down what they’re going to do there.
As well as nobody has decided where they would put this quarantine facility
if and when they build it. That has not even been decided. As you can
imagine, the locationing, positioning of B[S]L-4 facilities can become
a real issue with people. “Not in my backyard will you put that
stuff.” They tried to put one in Boston [Massachusetts] somewhere,
and that turned into a nightmare, they never have built the facility
because they never could get a location that people would accept.
The Galveston [Texas] facility which has just been finished, a lot of
people don’t even know it’s there. There is a brand-new
B[S]L-4 facility on Galveston Island as part of UTMB that just opened
last year. So that was very quietly done, although there was all the
proper notifications and meetings. Nobody really objected to it like
they did to this other facility. In fact, Galveston considered it a
bonus because of the extra economic impact that it would have. I’ve
been there and toured it and it’s a very good facility, very modern.
Incredibly well designed. It’s going to do the job they need to
do. I don’t think people need to worry about that one. If there
is a real serious threatening hurricane, they’d basically incinerate
everything right now. So a lot of testing would go down the tubes because
tests that were started and stuff would have to be interrupted, and
all the results. They’d have to start these things over again,
which could kill a year or two’s worth of research in some cases,
but that’s what they would do. They’ve got incinerators
right there. So if there’s a serious threat, the stuff goes right
in the incinerators, and boom, it’s gone. So there’s not
really a threat.
If there were a serious hurricane coming, they’d do that, and
that’s it. When [Hurricane] Ike came they’d got the facility
fully operational but they hadn’t gotten any bad stuff in it yet.
So they didn’t have anything to incinerate when Ike came through
last year. They tested. The facility came through fine. It’s up
high, so there was no chance of flooding. It’s on like the third,
fourth, and fifth floors of a very strong building, and it wasn’t
affected at all by the hurricane. That was comforting. They didn’t
have anything to incinerate yet.
They may by now, I don’t know exactly when they were going to
start really doing serious work in there. The point is nobody has zeroed
in on a location for this quarantine facility. Some people want it,
a lot of people don’t want it. People I think that are knowledgeable,
and most people that are into this business are quite certain that there’s
not going to be anything on Mars that’s going to be a threat.
There are certain people that aren’t too worried. They’d
love to have it. Again, no serious talk has really gone on as to where
it’ll be.
The curation facility will be here at JSC, and it’s just a question
of how big the sample return looks like it’s going to be as to
what kind of facility they actually produce. At least as of right now
that’s the NASA policy, all extraterrestrial samples come here,
once they’re deemed safe biologically.
Now there is this concern too that with the biologists—I keep
calling them biologists. That’s not probably fair. The people
who would do the planetary protection aspect, they are reluctant to
give us criteria for releasing them. The fear is that they’ll
never do that and they’ll never release them, even though they
may be perfectly safe. They’ll never feel safe releasing them,
because like I said they’ll never be certain that their tests
are good enough to really be sure absolutely, unequivocally, 100% positive
for sure. They’ll never feel that good about it, no matter even
though they have continuous negative results. There are people concerned
about that.
So this quarantine facility may in fact become the permanent curation
facility. Who knows? They even talk about setting up research facilities
in there so that the samples never have to leave. The research facilities
are right there, but that has its drawbacks, too, because you’re
talking about some pretty darn expensive equipment to sit there and
only work there on those samples at some time and not do other stuff.
The kinds of instruments you would use to analyze Martian samples around
the world wouldn’t spend that much time analyzing them, and they
analyze a lot of other stuff too. If you put all that kind of expensive
equipment in this one place, and it’s only used for that, then
it’s a waste.
There’s all sorts of issues around it that people just haven’t
dealt with yet. If a Martian sample becomes a reality they will have
to deal with them, and that’ll be interesting how they do that.
You’ll see some real finagling going on, politics and all sorts
of stuff, fearmongering I suspect, going on around that kind of thing.
But we know how to curate them, that’s not an issue. We know how
to take care of them. We know how to protect them. That we can do. We
just don’t understand this other aspect of the potential biological
hazard and how to deal with it apparently.
Ross-Nazzal: Have
you made any suggestions in terms of what you learned from working in
the LRL [Lunar Receiving Laboratory]? Has that been taken into account?
Or is that just disregarded because the Moon was very different a planet?
Lofgren: I’ll
say this delicately. The LRL quarantine was probably not all that effective.
The modern people look at that and they say, “Ooh, that wasn’t
too good.” It was designed by the people at Fort Detrick [Maryland]
who are the nation’s type place for studying dangerous things.
One of the first, I don’t know if it was the first, but one of
the major B[S]L-4 facilities in this country is at Fort Detrick, which
is near DC. People from that facility came here and designed the features
in the LRL. They did a lot of things well, but there were some things
that weren’t done so well.
If you think about what you saw on television when the crews returned
from the Moon, how the capsule landed in the water, then the crews got
out of the capsule and got on the helicopter without any quarantine,
then got on the ship, and then went into a quarantine facility. You
think about that for a minute. There were weak points, let me say, in
the procedure. They’re talking about being far more rigorous now
than anything during the LRL days. If anything they’ve learned
to improve upon rather than learned anything positive from the LRL experience.
The testing that they did then, I don’t think the people today
consider that testing adequate. I’m not an expert on that, but
they certainly weren’t impressed with the testing that was done
in those days. We certainly have far more sophisticated instruments
to detect evidence of life at a much, much lower level in terms of the
amount of it present in material. They understand how to do that where
they didn’t even begin to understand how to do it then. Basically
back then they fed stuff to mice and rats, and that was their test.
They can be far more sophisticated today.
They still do that, don’t get me wrong, but there are other tests
they can do today that they couldn’t have done back then, analytical
tests for just certain kinds of molecules and biological substances
that indicate life, or life indicators. You can do this down almost
to the molecular level nowadays with analytical instruments that they
couldn’t even begin to think about in the ’60s. It’s
a different ballgame today in terms of that kind of analytical stuff.
They haven’t learned too much from the LRL experience.
Ross-Nazzal: What
was your involvement with the Genesis mission?
Lofgren: Functionally
as an observer, just a very close at hand observer. I was there when
all this was going on and witnessed it. They carved out a couple of
rooms in the lunar building for the Genesis labs. They took one room.
The early ’90s, I guess, somewhere along in there, they stopped
having all of the walking tours on site. It used to be that people could
walk around the site, they could go into the lunar building and view
the samples in the observation room. On the first floor they had restrooms
there for the visitors. They had a big room with a bunch of displays
in it and that sort of thing that they could look at, twice the size
of this office say or maybe a little bit bigger than that, but a room
adjacent to the restrooms with some displays and stuff so they could
learn something about what they’d seen upstairs.
In the early ’90s, that all went away. They didn’t have
walking tours on site. People couldn’t access this building. Even
JSC people couldn’t get in there. They locked it up. We do tours
all the time, but even as a JSC employee the chance to go in the building
and just wander around is gone. The room that was used for displays
had become a storeroom. The restrooms weren’t used anymore. They
were turned into storerooms.
When the Genesis mission came along, they decided to take that room,
the restroom area, and one other room that we were actually using as
part of the lunar lab, and create this special clean room for processing
the Genesis samples. This was all done in ’97 to 2000, something
along in there, in that two- or three-year period. The plans were on
the books when I became curator in ’97. That was November of ’97.
They hadn’t done the work yet, but the decisions had been made
and the plans were already there. They had been designed. So I witnessed
the construction of the facility.
They built a class 10 clean room, which is about as clean as you can
get. The people who use class 10 clean rooms primarily are the semiconductor
people. They need very clean rooms when they start making these tiny
little semiconductor pieces and putting all the circuitry on them and
etching them. They need to do that, when they’re very clean, because
just one little particle of dust in the wrong place can screw it all
up. So they have these class 10 clean rooms.
Basically what that means is the number of particles in a cubic meter
is like ten, and that’s really pretty darn clean. When you figure
this room is probably 100,000 particles in a cubic meter. So that’s
the difference. The lab was built. I was there when they brought the
final space prepared hardware to do the final cleaning. They basically
created these wafers that were about three inches by six inches roughly.
They were hexagonal shape. They had several trays. I think it was five
trays that were about three feet in diameter. They put about 50 or 60
of these wafers in each tray, and they were mounted in each tray.
The wafers were of different kinds. The mission involved exposing these
materials to the direct solar rays from the Sun, the solar wind. The
idea was that these particles would hit these surfaces and embed themselves
in these surfaces, in these wafers in these materials, which were, I
don’t know, less than a millimeter thick. But these particles
would only embed themselves a few atom diameters into it. You would
bring these back and then people would analyze exactly what’s
coming off of the Sun.
The different trays were exposed for different times during different
solar events. If you have a solar flare, you’d want to know that
that had happened while you had certain trays exposed to the Sun. The
mission spent two years at what they called a Lagrange point, which
is the point between the Earth and the Sun where the pull of gravity
is equal, so it’s a neutral point gravitywise between the Earth
and the Sun. Obviously it’s much closer to the Earth than the
Sun because the Sun is so much bigger, it’s got higher gravity.
It’s easy to stabilize something at the Lagrange point so it stays
there in this orbit around the Earth. It’s a very stable place
for it to sit for this two-year period.
They shuffled these trays in and out and exposed them for different
amounts of time. There was I guess on the order of 250 to 300 of these
wafers. Some of them were silicon. Some of them were coated with diamond.
Some of them were gold. Some of them were pure aluminum. You wanted
the elements that came from the solar wind from the Sun embedded in
these particles to be enough of a difference in their atomic weight
from the material they’re embedded in that you could see them.
To be able to analyze all the different materials that come off of the
Sun, you’ve got to have different materials here so that you have
wafers that are compositioned enough different from the atoms that are
impinging upon it. That’s why you have so many different kinds
of material. There’s about eight or 12 different kinds of materials
in these trays.
We had these 300 wafers of these different compositions all nicely put
in these trays. Then everything went absolutely perfectly until the
return. Most people know about what happened on the return. The spacecraft
crashed into the landing site because the parachute didn’t open,
and the best determination of why the parachute didn’t open is
that this little special gravity sensor which senses gravity and tells
the parachutes to open was upside down, so it never sensed gravity.
So the parachute never opened and crash!
Stardust, which was a mission that came home a couple years later, it
was the one that went around a comet and collected comet dust. It left
earlier, too, because it was like a seven-year mission or an eight-year
mission. The Genesis was only like a two-and-a-half-year mission from
launch to return. The Stardust mission had to go all the way out to
this comet and back, so it was like seven years. It launched in ’99
and came back in ’05 or ’06. Forget exactly which year.
It had exactly the same setup, but its sensor switch was put in properly,
and the chutes opened and performed like it should.
The one test that wasn’t done, as I understand it anyway, or I’ve
been told, is that on the Genesis mission they got a little rushed for
time and money and they didn’t do the centrifuge test which would
have told them. They would have found out real quick that the sensor
was in upside down. They’d have found that out right away, but
they didn’t do the test. So they didn’t know. That was part
of the faster, better, cheaper concept. They got a little bit too cheap,
I think, in some aspects. They learned their lesson that that doesn’t
work too well. You’ve got to go through all the steps. They didn’t
go through all the steps.
In spite of the crash, a very high proportion of the science will still
be done. The crash eliminated the problem of how to subdivide the wafers,
because the 300 wafers became over 20,000 small pieces, so they were
already subdivided for you. You just had to find the right ones. They
did one clever thing that was really good. The wafers in every tray
were all the same thickness, but the wafers in the five different trays
were all a different thickness, so you could determine which tray your
wafer was from by the thickness of the wafer. That saved the day, because
without that, with these 20,000 pieces they would have not known what
tray they were in. They wouldn’t have known what their exposure
history was. It’s important to know what the exposure history
was.
That was one good thing that they did. So now you can take these particles
out. They have to be cleaned, because a lot of them are dirty from the
impact. They opened the spacecraft up, and it was exposed to the mud
and the dirt on the surface of the desert out there in Utah. So they’re
cleaning them, but the saving grace is that the things that you’re
analyzing for are embedded in the particles and not on the surface.
A lot of the scientists actually in the end weren’t all that concerned
because they would ion-etch the surface and clean it up and then they’d
go in and analyze the stuff inside.
Now, for some scientists it was more inconvenient than for others, depending
on what kind of instrument they were using and exactly what they were
doing. For the most part they weren’t all that concerned about
the little bit of dirt that was on the surface because they could clean
that off themselves. So in that sense, a lot of science has been done
on the Genesis samples. In addition to that, one of the most important
parts of that mission was to determine the concentration of light elements,
particularly oxygen, that come off of the Sun. What’s the solar
ratio of the different oxygen isotopes, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, all those
different isotopes of oxygen? We use these ratios throughout planetary
science to distinguish materials from different parts of the solar system.
One of the real important aspects of this mission was to find out what’s
the ratio of these elements as they come off the Sun.
In other words, what’s the fundamental ratio, and then how do
things vary as you get into different parts of the solar system. Then
you can start talking about why they vary. Until you know what the initial
state is, sometimes it’s hard to understand. You know that these
places got different, but you don’t know what the starting point
was, and you don’t know then how they varied or how much they
varied from some common starting point. This is one of the most important
parts of this mission was to determine that for carbon and for oxygen.
They had a special device in the very center of the spacecraft which
didn’t move and was exposed the whole time. They called it a concentrator
because it was designed so that all these light elements would tend
to be pulled into it, so they’d get a higher density of materials
to study. That part of the spacecraft survived pretty well actually,
almost undamaged. It was way down deep in the heart of the spacecraft
so that it did survive better than some of the stuff that were in these
trays. That material got broken up pretty much. There were four of these
wafers in the very center of this concentrator, three of them were totally
intact, and one was about a third was broken off of it. The wafers right
in the center of that concentrator were in good shape.
That was a saving grace as well. They’re going to do all right.
I don’t know. It’s hard to put a percentage on what they
lost, but it’s not much. It’s down in the 10% level, what
the science they’ve lost because of the crash. It’s a little
more difficult to deal with the samples, they’re dirty, and to
curate them is a nightmare because you got so many pieces to deal with.
They ask for a piece from this tray, then you got to hunt through all
these pieces and measure the thicknesses of them all and find the ones
that were from this tray, which can be a rather tedious job. It’s
made the curation more difficult and the allocation more difficult,
but it’s doable.
Ross-Nazzal: Would
you tell us what your tasks are as lunar curator? I thought we’d
talk about your position and a number of things associated with that.
Lofgren: The primary
task that the lunar curator has is to oversee the preservation and protection
of the samples. Protection is important, but the threat is not that
high. So really the big thing is the protection of the samples from
the Earth’s environment, to make sure that that is rigorously
done and observed. We do that primarily by keeping the samples in a
very pure form of nitrogen gas, and then keeping them packaged very
well in three materials which are allowed to come in contact with the
lunar samples, which is a 304 stainless steel alloy, aluminum alloys
technically in the 6100 series, which have the fewest impurities that
the scientists object to, and Teflon. Teflon is the flexible packaging
material, and then aluminum containers and stainless steel containers,
aluminum foil used to wrap things, are the packaging materials.
That’s worked out pretty well. These are very artificial manmade
materials, they’re not going to be confused with anything from
the Moon, and tend to be pure enough that they don’t contaminate
anything. That has proven to be the case. We have to work in a flowing
environment, with the gas flowing through the cabinets that contain
the samples because we have gloves. These are glove boxes. The gloves
are made of a flexible material, neoprene. Neoprene is not totally impervious
to the migration of oxygen through the glove. It actually can go through
the glove. If you created a static cabinet with gloves in it, and you
got it down to the five ppm [parts per million] oxygen and water where
we try to keep those levels, it would be up into the thousands in a
matter of days. Moisture and air in the room would go through the gloves
eventually and work its way into the cabinets. We constantly flow gas
through the cabinets at a steady rate, and that’s the only way
that it really works.
We analyze the cabinets. Every cabinet is analyzed several times a day
from the analytical system. There’s the cabinets in the vault
and the cabinets in the processing area. Every ten minutes, each cabinet
is sampled and analyzed. Then it goes through these cycles constantly.
It’s constantly monitoring the oxygen and water content and the
gas in the cabinets, as well as monitoring the gas coming into the building,
which of course is your primary source.
Monitoring the cabinets for leaks—big leaks. If a big leak occurs
somehow, some big slice of glove or something like that where it really
allows a lot of stuff to come in. So that’s the primary preservation,
and that has worked. That has worked quite well. No matter what material
you use you sacrifice something. Back in the ’60s when they chose
nitrogen as the gas partly because it’s reasonably priced, reasonably
available compared to almost any other gas you could use, and nobody
studied isotopes of nitrogen at that time. Now they do, because the
instruments are getting better and you can actually do that now, when
you couldn’t even do that back in the ’60s and ’70s.
It complicates a little bit analyzing nitrogen isotopes in lunar samples
because they’re stored in nitrogen and you have to worry about
what the ratio of the isotopes are in the gas they’re being stored
in is relative to the nitrogens, the environment they’re trying
to study. It’s not a huge issue, and nitrogen hasn’t become
a really important element to study. So it’s still not an important
issue. Nitrogen is still the good gas to store them in. That probably
would be true for other samples as well.
We certainly use it for the meteorites, but the Genesis samples and
the Stardust samples more or less have to be processed in air, and they
are processed in air. They’re not immediately affected by moisture
like the lunar samples would be. The lunar samples came from an environment
in which there was absolutely no water. When I say that, you’re
going to say, “Yes, but they found water on the Moon.” Well,
they found water on the Moon at just incredibly low levels. You can
pick up almost any lunar sample that’s come back from Apollo,
and you don’t even see evidence of that water. What they found
on the Moon is a particular phenomenon that occurs largely in the colder
areas of the Moon and not at the equator where we returned samples during
Apollo. So there are issues, but the samples have been kept quite clean
and relatively free of water throughout their history.
Beyond that, my job is to work with the science community to get samples
to them for study. Although I do not choose who gets to study samples.
There is an independently commissioned committee, commissioned by [NASA]
Headquarters [Washington, DC], that actually evaluates requests for
lunar samples and determines whether the studies are worth doing and
are appropriately conceived and are “good science.” The
requests are submitted to me, and then the committee in fact meets next
Monday and Tuesday of next week. They meet twice a year typically, and
the meeting happens to be next week. They have requests that they will
discuss and decide whether these people should get samples. Most requests
are successful because we don’t get frivolous requests. You might
think you would, but in fact it’s very rare that we get what I
would call frivolous requests.
Lots of times the committee will make suggestions, make changes, ask
more questions, ask questions about technique and these various kinds
of things just to make sure the people know what they’re doing.
If their proposal or request doesn’t explicitly describe these
things, the committee will put them through another series of questions
and answers before they get samples. But it’s not too often that
they categorically turn down a sample. They try to get samples out there
to be studied. As long as the scientist is a recognized scientist and
the science is good science, they’ll work with the people to try
and make sure they get the kind of samples they need and be sure they’re
doing what they say they’re doing.
So it’s a system that has worked quite well over the years. We’ve
been doing this kind of evaluation of requests from the very beginning.
This was part of the original premise on how they would deal with sample
requests. It’s continued to this day and really has changed very
little. The samples, we’re still allocating somewhere between
300 and 400 samples a year. It goes up and down a little bit, but several
hundred samples a year still are allocated to scientists around the
world. It is an international program, not just US. There’s no
requirement about being a US citizen or anything. The requirement is
basically the committee evaluates a scientist. Is he a recognized scientist
of good repute, [that] has a good scientific reputation? That’s
one of the first things they look at.
Ross-Nazzal: So
you couldn’t necessarily be a junior scholar and be awarded a
[sample]?
Lofgren: Well,
the best way, junior scholars usually work through a senior scholar,
but you have to have proven yourself at some level. You’re not
going to come right out of college and the first thing with no track
record and get lunar samples. The science system works where you come
out of college, you usually apprentice—that’s not the word
they use in science. You get a postdoc [postdoctoral fellowship], or
you work in another prominent scientist’s lab for a couple, three
years, after you’ve gotten all your degrees. It’s like doing
a residency in medicine or something, you’re proving yourself
beyond the formal education stage. So they’ll usually get samples
under the auspices of the more senior person. Within three or four years
you can usually, if you’re good, develop a reputation to where
you can stand on your own. They want to bring young people in, so they
find good young people, they’ll allocate them samples. It’s
good to keep young people coming into the program.
Ross-Nazzal: Is
this committee the CAPTEM [Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial
Materials]?
Lofgren: Yes.
Ross-Nazzal: How
big are the samples, normally? You said 300 or 400 a year, so how big
is a sample when you get it?
Lofgren: Oh, samples
are small. Average sample is less than a gram.
Ross-Nazzal: How
big is that?
Lofgren: There’s
28 grams in an ounce, 28.3 actually grams in an ounce. A half-gram sample
would be the size of an aspirin tablet or smaller, more like the size
of a mini aspirin.
Ross-Nazzal: Oh,
like the children’s aspirin?
Lofgren: That’s
probably 100 milligrams, something like that. So that’s the size
of a sample roughly. They might go up. A ten-gram sample, which again
is like a third of an ounce, is a big sample for allocation purposes.
A ten-gram sample is a huge sample for the scientists analyzing, too.
The typical amount of material that they do a single analysis on is
less than 100, 200 milligrams at a time. The techniques have gotten
to where you just don’t need much sample to do your work. There’s
a few instances where you do, and where concentration levels are incredibly
low people might get three-, five-, maybe even a ten-gram sample, but
that’s not too common. So 300 or 400 samples is still probably
only a couple, three ounces of material.
Ross-Nazzal: How
much was collected during the Apollo Program?
Lofgren: Eight
hundred forty-two pounds. We still have over 700 pounds of pristine
material that’s been in pristine storage ever since we got it.
We got another 100 pounds or so that are out in the remote storage facility.
We’ve probably only consumed 40, 50 pounds in terms of serious
study. A lot of scientists will destroy most or all of the sample they
get to do their analysis. If you analyze samples with a mass spectrometer,
which is the typical instrument to do very very low concentrations of
elements or to do isotopic age dating, you totally dissolve the sample,
and then you deposit it on an electrode, you put the electrode in the
machine, you burn the electrode, that frees the ions into this stream
around a magnet, and then you separate the atoms by weight as it goes
down around this magnet. then you analyze the individual atoms based
on their weight. You don’t need much material to do that, but
you do destroy it in the process.
Some samples go out, nothing comes back. That’s still a small
percentage. Less than 3% by weight of the total collection has been
destroyed in scientific analysis. More samples have been used for education
allocations than for science by weight, not by number, because the typical
display specimen might be 100 grams, a quarter of a pound, whereas a
typical allocation is a gram.
Ross-Nazzal: Yes,
it’s so tiny.
Lofgren: There’s
a major difference there, but 10% of the collection by weight has been
either involved in scientific study or used for education samples. So
that’s 80 pounds out of 800 and something. There’s still
well over 700 pounds still remaining. Although people ask me, “Well,
have you studied all the samples?” Well, yes. Every single sample
has been looked at. Some are deemed more interesting than others so
they’ve been studied more extensively because they’re more
scientifically interesting. Not every sample has been studied extensively,
but it’s been looked at well enough to know what it is and should
it or should it not be studied extensively. They make that choice. They
don’t always make the right choice initially, but the sample is
there, listed in catalogs, and if somebody eventually decides they want
to look at that one more, then they can.
The scientists pore over the collection, and they determine the samples
they want to study and what they think are important ones. That’s
pretty much the way it works. So we still have a fair amount of material,
but we have milked the science out of the collection pretty well within
the limits of the analytical capabilities of the instruments.
One of the reasons that samples continue to be studied fairly extensively
is that the nature and abilities of the instruments improve all the
time. We can do things analytically that we wouldn’t have dreamed
of 30 years ago or 40 years ago. So one of the primary reasons that
significant numbers of samples are still studied is for that reason.
People can do things now they just couldn’t even think about doing.
They may have wanted to do it. They may have thought about it, but the
instruments just couldn’t do it. Now some of these things can
be done with the increased analytical sensitivity of the modern instruments.
Ross-Nazzal: Can
you give us an example of some of the studies that people are doing
today?
Lofgren: Some of
the most obvious ones are in isotopic systems. When we first started
doing age dating, you would look at the various isotopes of lead to
age-date things. The other one was the ratios of strontium and rubidium.
You’re analyzing tiny tiny fractions of a gram here. Now they
can analyze to the picogram level, which is like 10-12 grams. When they’re
analyzing the ratios of these different isotopes of a single element,
these are not big numbers weight wise, so it takes very precise instruments.
When we first started, we could do strontium-rubidium and we could do
lead. Now there’s like five or six different isotopic systems
that we can study. Tungsten-hafnium, manganese-chromium, let’s
see, neodymium-samarium. These are elements that are present at two
to three orders of magnitude lower amounts to analyze than we could
analyze during Apollo days. There’s whole new isotopic systems,
like four or five, that you can study now that you couldn’t. You
knew they existed, but you just didn’t have the analytical tools
to do it. Now they do. This has allowed them to do age-dating. Different
isotopic systems, you age-date based on the decay rate of certain radioactive
elements into other elements, and then you do the ratios of those two
elements and you know what the decay constant is for these elements.
This element decaying to that element is a relatively constant decay
rate. So you look at the amount of the daughter product and the amount
of the parent product, and then you can do ratios and you can do age-dating.
It’s a little bit more sophisticated, but in a nutshell that’s
what’s going on.
Depending on the decay rate, you’re looking at ages in different
age ranges. So now some of these systems we can do now allow us to fine-tune
things that are going on 5 billion years ago in great detail, where
just in the lead system or the strontium isotope system you had much
higher errors when you went back that far. Now you can work in systems
where the errors are very small way back in that early period, the early
history of our solar system. So you can date events in the first 100
million years more accurately than you could even think about doing
during the Apollo days.
That’s helped us to understand the early history of the solar
system and how things developed at that early stage. That’s just
one example. Understanding how the planetary differentiation takes place.
As planets evolve, there’s a lot of heat involved in the accretion
process, the heat is captured in a planet. The Earth is still hot from
that heat that was acquired during the accretion process, and that’s
why we still have volcanoes, because we got a lot of heat down in the
center of the Earth, and it melts stuff, and that melted stuff comes
to the surface and comes to the surface as volcanic eruptions. That’s
the primary way heat escapes from the center of the Earth is through
that. There’s a constant heat flow all the time, but you get a
lot more heat out when the volcano erupts molten lava. You can get as
much heat out in one eruption as the whole planet evolves in a year
just through the normal diffusion through the normal crust. Where was
I going with this?
Ross-Nazzal: We
were talking about the samples and what people were studying today.
Lofgren: Yes. So
we can look at that early stage of crustal evolution. This isn’t
so much age-dating as looking at that process. One of the things that
happens, the heavy elements tend to go to the center of the planet,
to the core. So we have an iron-rich core on the Earth. One of the ways
to study that is to look at a lot of other elements, not the major elements
like iron and stuff, but to look at some of the elements that are there
in small quantities, and look how they are partitioned between stuff
on the surface and stuff in the center. One of those groups is the platinum
group elements. They’re not the elements you’re usually
thinking of, like osmium and palladium and rhenium. Those are all elements
that are in the same group as platinum but are present at very much
smaller quantities.
We can analyze now all those elements very accurately, where we couldn’t
do it during the Apollo days. So that is not so much age-dating things,
but it talks about this process of planetary differentiation, and how
the planets change as they mature or they cool down with time from their
original state. There’s all sorts of these kinds of things going
on, but most of it is centered around analyzing for small amounts of
material that you can use as indicators for processes that change things
in the planetary evolution of planets.
That’s how we understand those processes is usually with these
small tracer elements that move around. The big elements, you don’t
see small differences in those very easily because there’s so
much of it, but the trace elements sometimes are much more informative.
We can do those much better.
Ross-Nazzal: It’s
amazing. So we went to the Moon, and we learned more about our solar
system, not just about the Moon then?
Lofgren: Well,
that’s actually one of the major things about the Moon that not
everybody understands. You can say a lot of people, they don’t
grasp it, is that we’ve learned so much about our solar system
by studying the Moon. We’ve learned a lot about the Moon, but
we’ve learned even more about the origin of our solar system.
Primarily because the Moon is a smaller planetary body and was never
as hot, and since it’s a smaller diameter it cooled more rapidly.
The active geologic processes pretty much ceased 3 billion years ago,
plus or minus 500 billion years, so that the surface of the Moon is
almost all older than the oldest rocks we have on Earth. We can find
rocks of any significant amount, very few [are] older than 3 billion
years old. You can find the odd little small area of rocks that are
older. They’re finding minerals now that are 4 billion years old,
but they’re individual minerals, they’re not whole rocks.
They’re very informative, they tell us a lot. But the rocks from
the first 2 billion years of Earth’s history are gone for the
most part, or 1.5 billion years, are gone. The Moon is mostly those
rocks. So the Moon is like a history book that stopped changing 3 billion
years ago and we can look at that early history, but of planetary formation,
not just the Moon. The same kinds of processes go on on the Moon as
go on on other planets. Looking at the timing of events on the Moon
tells you the timing of events on the other planets as well because
they all evolved and formed in the same approximately timeframe, particularly
the terrestrial planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The gaseous
planets are a little different: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, et cetera are
a little different. Of course things get colder as you go farther away
too.
The Moon basically has proven to be an open book for our whole solar
system. It’s not just the Moon. That’s the thing: “Well,
you’ve studied the Moon, you don’t need to do that anymore.”
Well, we understand how the Moon formed, there’s still stuff we’d
like to learn about the Moon, but there’s still a lot we’d
like to learn about our whole solar system and how it evolved and where
we came from. We still can learn from the Moon even more. We need samples
from other portions of the Moon, different ages, and get a better idea.
The earliest crust of the Moon is mostly on the back side. We haven’t
been there yet. We’ve seen it, but we haven’t been able
to sample it. So it’s important to get around there and start
sampling some things as well.
Ross-Nazzal: Since
we’re at this point, what impact did President [George W.] Bush’s
new Vision for Space Exploration have on your position? Did it change
things?
Lofgren: Well,
it certainly changed my job. All of a sudden people got interested in
studying the Moon more than they had been. Hasn’t been a huge
jump, but there’s been a significant increase in interest in studying
lunar samples since that program was announced. It’s a broader
variety of people. More younger people are starting to get interested.
We had evolved into an established group of scientists that were slowly
aging and getting older, but now we’re starting to see a cadre
of younger guys in their 30s coming in the program, which is good.
So yes, it’s changed things. It certainly has invigorated the
people and has increased interest in the Moon and in Mars, because they
think well, there’s a chance we may actually do something with
these bodies. It looked like for a long time we were never going to
leave low Earth orbit again. Now maybe we will. It’s expensive,
it’s a problem, it’s going to be difficult. When we’re
going to do it is still open to question exactly, but it’s looking
like there is the motivation to actually do it, I think. I could be
wrong. Maybe it’s wishful thinking. I like to think I’ll
still be in my rocking chair when we go back to the Moon, watching it
on my porch. I won’t be the curator anymore, that’s for
sure, because ten years from now I will certainly be retired. But it’ll
be fun to watch it. I hope it happens soon enough that I do get to see
it happen.
Ross-Nazzal: One
of the things I was reading about in that ASK Magazine article that
we haven’t talked about was the renovation of Building 31N. Can
you talk a little more about it?
Lofgren: When I
became curator, it was readily apparent to me that I was looking at
a 20-year-old building, and clearly there were things that were starting
to show their age. One of the most important things and one of the critical
things, was our source of the nitrogen gas that we need. We get our
nitrogen gas by evaporating liquid nitrogen. The way we get our nitrogen
is in the form of liquid nitrogen. We have a big storage tank of liquid
nitrogen, and then we slowly boil off liquid into a gaseous form that
we run through our cabinets. We purchase the purest form of liquid nitrogen,
which gives us a very pure form of nitrogen gas.
The state of the liquid nitrogen tank, which had been acquired from
surplus in the mid ’60s, was really showing its age. It wasn’t
so much that the tank itself was showing its age and was in danger of
failing, but all of the controls for the tank were 1960s vintage controls,
which were now obsolete, unrepairable, you couldn’t get spare
parts for them. So if you had a major failure in your control system,
you were in serious trouble.
We first looked into refurbishing the existing tank and came up with
a price tag of about $600,000. Then we looked into a new tank, and that
was like $700,000. It was like a no-brainer. The final coup de grace
that got us to a new tank, the old tank was over next to the Lunar Receiving
Lab, which it was built to supply nitrogen to the Lunar Receiving Lab,
and then when the facility moved across the parking lot to 31, we extended
this supply line from 37 over to 31. Well, that was done in 1971 or
something.
They came along this little space between the two parking lots that
are between 37 and 31. There was a narrow sidewalk with some flowerbeds
and stuff, and they’d planted a couple little tiny oak trees.
Now the oak trees are like this [demonstrates], and the nitrogen line
that they buried right next to those oak trees now looks like this [demonstrates],
and had come to the surface in a couple places. It was buried 12 to
15 inches deep, and it had been bent enough that it had come to the
surface by the roots getting larger and just pushing it up. That was
just unnerving to see our two-inch stainless steel pipe pushed all the
way and exposed at the surface.
Said, “Okay, now that that’s happened, we’re getting
a new tank, and we’re positioning it right next to 31.”
So that’s not an issue anymore. So that was one of the first things
we did. That was finished in basically ’03. The other thing that
happened had nothing to do with the age of the facility but was just
our remote storage facility was in San Antonio [Texas], and in the mid
’70s we had found a building at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio
that had been abandoned and wasn’t being used. It was a former
munitions bunker actually, one that has dirt halfway up the walls, no
windows, that kind of thing. It was the perfect building, and so we
built a vault inside the building, a special vault.
We had the samples there until 2002 when we were forced to move them
because the Air Force basically sold, donated, I don’t remember
which, a lot of this property to the city, San Antonio, including the
area where our building was. Now we could have kept our building, but
the Air Force was no longer providing security. So we investigated the
price of security for our building, and it was going to be $250,000
a year with one of the private security firms to provide the kind of
security that the building needed. We did a little back of the envelope
calculation and decided that we could build a new facility for $200,000
and position it out at White Sands [Test Facility], which is the NASA
facility near Las Cruces [New Mexico], and again take the benefit of
existing security and not have to pay for security. That’s what
we did. We built a facility out there at White Sands [Test] Facility
and moved the samples in 2002 from San Antonio there. That was one of
the first things we did, and the tank came a year after that. Those
were two things we had to do right away.
Then the other thing that was clear, just like the nitrogen tank, the
air handling system, all of the controls in the air handling system
were actually mercury relay switches, which are even against the law
today. You can’t even make them anymore. Obviously you couldn’t
get repair parts for that. So if the control system had failed, again
we would have been without air conditioning for the samples.
That was the next big project, which we are just in the process of finishing
right now. The project is fundamentally complete. We’re doing
a little fine-tuning on the air handlers, but the project is basically
complete. That went successfully. Then thanks to the 9/11 event, we
got our security systems replaced. Again, a lot of that was obsolete
technologies. It’s now much better and more secure. We didn’t
have to pay for that one, which was nice. One of the last things that
we’re going to have to do is the floor material is beginning to
deteriorate and the wall coverings are beginning to become a problem.
They developed in terms of clean room design, they developed new products
that are much better for floors and walls that we will use. We’ll
basically just cover over our walls and floors. The ceilings were epoxy-painted,
so we don’t have to do anything with those, but the walls and
floors will be redone, and that’s yet to be done. That’s
probably the last thing of any significance.
Now there was one other project that was important. It was a computer
problem, not a building problem. We had a database that we used to inventory
all the samples and keep an accurate inventory of the samples. When
we would allocate a sample, we would take one piece, split it into two
pieces. Then you entered the new number for the new piece and put the
old piece back, changed the weights. It was like a double bookkeeping
system. Everything had to balance. So it was a sophisticated system,
but the problem was it was designed on a computer with a software program
that was specific to that computer that became obsolete about six years
ago.
This was the VAX computers, which they stopped making, I don’t
know exactly when, but in the early part of this millennium. I like
to say that. It was clear that we needed to migrate our database to
PCs [Personal Computers] or modern computer systems with modern programs
that would continue to be updated. We had come to a dead end. We had
hung on to this program that was no longer supported. It was not as
good as modern programs. The computers were about to die, and there
were no replacements. Nobody else ran this program, only this one, DEC,
Digital Electronics was the only one. Those computers were the only
ones that could run this program. There were much better programs that
had been written in the meantime. So we had to do that, and I figured,
“Give me $50K and we’ll do that.” Well, it turned
out to be about $1.2 million to do that job. It just boggled my mind.
To make this transition it took five programmers 14 months.
All this money was salary, there was no hardware involved in this, very
little. We did buy a new server, but that’s $10K for a brand-new
high powered server to handle all this. One hundred K was just salaries.
You take five high quality programmers and put them to work for 14 months,
that can run up in a hurry. It was expensive, but now we’ve got
a modern database that we can use. If those [VAX ]computers had crashed,
it wasn’t that we were going to lose any data, because it was
all backed up, and we wouldn’t have lost any data. We would have
lost our ability to allocate samples, because we couldn’t have
processed samples. Or we would have had to enter them by hand into something.
We have had nothing, no way to keep track of every time we made a new
sample how to do that.
It was important to get this done, and that was finished up two years
ago, something like that. I started worrying about it when I first became
curator in ’98. Well, it was virtually ’98. I started talking
to people and saying, “Well, how can we do this?” and exploring
all the options. As early as ’98, ’99, I was asking people
to start doing this and thinking about it. We had a couple, three false
starts and didn’t get anywhere, and the contractor would get a
couple of their computer programmers over and sit them in a room and
say, “Here’s what we do, now make a new one.” They’d
puzzle over it for a month or two and say, “We can’t do
this, we don’t know how to do this.” It was just beyond
them. They weren’t high enough caliber people, they hadn’t
dealt with databases before, they had no experience dealing with sophisticated
databases.
So it just took like five, six years before we even got to the point
where we knew what we had to do and sit down and say, “Okay, this
is going to cost real money, we’re not going to do it for $50,
$100K, this is going to be a big project.” We got a serious estimate
and produced a serious requirements document. In the end it was a little
over $1 million. That’s what it costs to do these kinds of things
these days. You just don’t get away from that.
As a result of that, we’ve got a crew of three people who deal
with databases employed by us, because databases are a huge part of
what we do. Every one of our collections needs a database. The person
in charge of the Genesis Project had started producing a Genesis database,
but it was limping along and needed an infusion of more people and better
talent. The Stardust mission came back. They started trying to do this
on the fly and found out no, that isn’t going to work. We’re
going to have to do a serious database situation here. They’ve
turned three or four people loose on that system. I don’t know
what it’s going to cost in the end to get that database written.
They’re just now finishing it up. Databases are what we have to
do to be able to allocate samples. So they suddenly realized, “Yes,
okay, we need a couple database experts in our own organization to keep
track of these databases and make sure they keep working and make the
changes and the improvements that need to be made as you go along.”
That’s become a huge part of what we have now. Ten years ago people
considered this a trivial sideline. No, it’s a central theme.
Without proper databases you can’t do your work, period, you’re
just dead in the water. It took a while for that to sink in and people
to realize that—the people who gave us the money and people who
funded us. Everybody had to realize that. Eventually they all did, but
it took some time. Those are the main things that we’ve done over
the years. In the end I suspect it’s going to be $4 or $5 million
worth of renovations.
The Center put a new roof on for us. Like I say, we didn’t have
to pay for the new roof or the security upgrade. The Center did those,
but we’ve had to round up money for the move for the new tank,
for the computer upgrades, and the air handler upgrades. We’ve
had to round up money for all those. The Center has contributed but
only a portion. We’ve had to get other significant slugs of funding
from Headquarters designated for these activities.
We’re reaching a point now where the facility is largely renewed.
The only thing left is floors and walls, which we consider the least
critical, but we still want to do it. It’s probably one of the
least expensive. The estimate is somewhere between $150 and $200K to
do all that. That’ll happen in the next couple years as we round
up the money for that. That’s not going to create a disaster like
some of these other things could have. It’s not as high a priority,
but it needs to be done. When that’s done, I think the facility
will be good for another 30 years. All the systems will basically have
been renewed.
The building is very sound. It’s a very simple building. There’s
no windows. There’s no plumbing. There’s no water in the
building. Fundamentally, it’s a simple building. The nitrogen
distribution system is the only complicated system. Distributing the
nitrogen gas to all the places that you need it, and doing that analysis
scheme that I was describing to you. That’s the most complicated
system there other than the security, which is complicated. But the
security people take care of that. If we have trouble, they get over
and sort it out, but we have to do the rest. We’ll be in good
shape now for quite a while.
The Genesis facility is basically new. The Stardust facility is new.
It’s good for a lot of years. There’s this predilection
to just not doing maintenance. Routine maintenance is boring, it’s
not exciting. Who wants to spend money on maintenance, for heaven’s
sakes? You look around JSC now. We just had our third water main rupture
of water coming into our building in two years, this last couple days.
Where they come in in the morning and say, “Don’t drink
the water, restrooms are closed for the day.” They get out there.
They manage to fix it in a day. So they got it repaired. This one was
repaired quicker than the last two, but then it takes two or three days
where they test the water and make sure it’s so you can drink
it. You start thinking. The utilities at JSC are now 40, 50 years old,
and it’s time things are going to start to happen, and they are.
It’s not a new place anymore. Maintenance is becoming important.
Because of Hurricane Ike, we got our roof about three years ago. I don’t
know if you’ve been on site, but they’re replacing a dozen
roofs right now all over the site. They’re replacing roofs damaged
by the hurricane. Parts of the roof blown off in several buildings.
That’s one way to get maintenance money. Not the best way, but
they got some maintenance money that way. People are starting to think
about that a little bit more I think. It’s expensive to keep doing
this little fix here and little fix there and then they just continue
to happen. You’ve got to plan a little better than that, especially
for critical facilities where you wouldn’t want the lunar samples
not taken care of. We tried to be very proactive once we realized we
really needed to be.
People did respond, and they allowed it to happen. We convinced that
it needed to happen. They believed it. You have to explain the situation.
They understood that yes, that’s right, these things need to be
replaced, that’s just pure and simple, it’s got to be done.
Air handling job right now is $1.6 million, something like that. You
think jeez, what are we talking about, three or four air conditioners,
but it’s not air conditioners like you think of normally.
Ross-Nazzal: Well,
you had mentioned security, and I was curious. I don’t know if
you want to talk about this on tape. I wondered if you would like to
share with us the stealing of the Moon rocks in 2002 and what impact
that had on your security.
Lofgren: They were
not stolen from our facility. They were stolen from one of the scientist
labs in 31, not in the lunar facility. Lunar facility, it would be very
very difficult to steal samples. Even this guy who stole these samples
realized that that was not going to be possible. You wouldn’t
do it stealthily. The only way you could do it would be a smash and
run, and you wouldn’t get very far, because the alarms are all
over the place. If those alarms go off, they shut down the site instantaneously,
you wouldn’t get off the site. Those alarms go off, the site shuts
down, period, nobody gets out until they figure out what happened.
The samples were stolen from a lab. They were observing all the standard
security procedures. This guy just figured out a way to defeat them
and managed to get the samples off site. As a consequence of that, the
security features in the building have been expanded. The video coverage
has expanded. They had doors that the hinge pins were on the outside
of a locked door. That’s not always the best way to keep a door
locked. They did have a feature where they weren’t easily removed,
but it just took a little more perseverance to remove them. These doors
were not originally built to be secure, only to be a laboratory where
you could just have a normal lock on it and don’t expect people
to be breaking in. They’ve now made these doors with these kinds
of hinges even more secure than they were. People have moved their safes
to places where the doors are more secure.
So that was a lesson learned. The average riffraff doesn’t get
into the Center, let alone into the building. You don’t expect
this kind of thing to happen. This guy that instigated this, [Thad R.
Roberts], he was an honors student. He was a co-op, a very bright guy,
except in certain matters. He was book smart, but lost a little common
sense along the way, because he was caught right away. The samples weren’t
gone a week.
Ross-Nazzal: Were
you involved in that investigation?
Lofgren: I was
in Japan when it happened. I was going there to give a lecture and carry
a lunar sample over there. I got off the airplane in Osaka, Japan, and
I had this immediate phone message to call home. The guy whose safe
had been stolen had sometime earlier in that year or the year before
given me an envelope with his combination, because he didn’t have
a consistent backup person to open the safe should it need to be opened.
So he put the combination in an envelope, sealed it, with a signature
across the seal. I had it in my safe in case we needed it. The first
thing they wanted to do was to see that envelope. Okay. So I gave the
combination to my boss. I was the only one that had the combination,
but I gave it to my boss. He looked in there, it was still there sealed
up.
They were thinking maybe he got into the safe somehow and might have
gotten the combination and then stole the safe. Well, no, he never had
the combination. You can go on the Web and you can figure out how to
crack these safes that we use at NASA. The instructions are on the Web.
You just have to go find them. That’s a little discouraging. They
tell you exactly what the weak points are and how to defeat them.
The thing that he did that was really interesting—he actually
advertised lunar samples for sale on the Web to mineralogy clubs around
the world before he had actually stolen anything. I guess he was just
testing the market. Is somebody really interested? Will somebody really
buy them if I steal them? So he put out this ad. The head of this club
in Holland, Netherlands looked at this ad. He had had some personal
experience. He said, “You can’t do this, you can’t
buy Moon rocks.” He knew that. Says, “Something’s
going on here.” He actually forwarded the ad to the FBI [Federal
Bureau of Investigation]. It went to their Orlando [Florida] office.
They saw this and they said, “Okay, well, we’re just going
to say, ‘Yes, we’ll buy rocks.’” They set up
a sting. As a result of that then he stole the samples, brought them
to Orlando, and then tried to sell them to the FBI. He was caught pretty
quickly. That’s why he was caught so quickly.
I’m not saying that some totally determined very clever thief
couldn’t crack—I don’t even know what all the security
systems we have and how they work. The security people know. I know
it’s extensive security, but I don’t even know the details.
None of our people know the details. Security people are the only ones
that really know the details of how the system works or where the weak
points are and that kind of thing or how you might defeat it. It’s
not easily done. So I’m not too worried about things from our
building. If you had some kind of huge armed assault, that’s a
whole other matter. In terms of stealth that would be pretty difficult.
Security is better in our building.
I’ve not heard of any actual significant attacks on a PI [Principal
Investigator] either in a university. They typically don’t have
all that much sample, as I told you. They don’t get big amounts
of sample. They don’t have that much. Nobody has chosen to try
and attack anybody out there. They have safes and locked rooms, but
it’s no more secure than what we have. It’s not extensive.
Although I got an IG [Inspector General] officer at Headquarters sent
me an email just this week. He had found some “lunar samples for
sale” on Angie’s List. I looked at the pictures. The pictures
were not totally diagnostic. I couldn’t say unequivocally that
they weren’t lunar samples, but I could be quite certain they
weren’t. But you can’t be 100%. They had a superficial resemblance
to some of the samples, and rocks are rocks, sometimes they’re
not all that different. Somebody had chosen some rocks that probably
had looked [like] pictures of Moon rocks, and these in a vague sort
of way resembled them. So they were trying to sell them. I told the
guy I could state with reasonable certainty that these were not lunar
rocks. We certainly aren’t missing any from our collection. I
know that for a fact. He said, “Good, thanks.” I don’t
know what the guy is going to do about it. If the guy actually sells
them, then he’s guilty of fraud. I don’t know what would
come of that; NASA is not going to prosecute that.
Samples have come up on eBay far more often than they’ve come
up on Angie’s List. That was a new one. You can put an ad apparently
on your own apparently on eBay, but then sooner or later somebody notices
it, and “No, no, no, we don’t sell Moon rocks on eBay.”
Ross-Nazzal: Do
they alert you or the IG’s Office if that pops up?
Lofgren: The IG’s
Office just keeps an eye on these things. I don’t. They come and
tell me. They have confiscated some of the things that were for sale
on eBay. One of them that was particularly amusing to me, this agent
confiscated it and then they brought it to me here in Houston. You’re
familiar with the red landscaping lava rock?
Ross-Nazzal: I
don’t think so.
JOHNSON: Yes.
Lofgren: Okay,
you know what I mean. You can buy them at Home Depot in bags. It’s
basically volcanic cinder.
Ross-Nazzal: Oh
yes, I know what you’re talking about now.
Lofgren: It was
a piece of that.
Ross-Nazzal: Did
they just paint it black?
Lofgren: No, it
was still red. You could actually find black versions of that too. They
have it in black and they have it in red. They didn’t even bother
to get a black one, because no lunar rocks are oxidized that much. No
lunar rocks are red. That was a dead giveaway.
Ross-Nazzal: That’s
why I was asking you, “Did they paint it.”
Lofgren: So I took
one glance at it and I said, “Come here. Let me show you.”
We went out to the back door, and there’s a whole area in the
garden full of this red rock. I picked one up and says, “Now does
that look like it?” He goes, “Oh my God.” He just
went back, and he was satisfied. It wasn’t a lunar rock. He just
told the guy. Gave it back to him, said, “You better not sell
this as a lunar rock. I’m not going to come after you, but somebody
will. It’s not my job, but somebody will sooner or later.”
They caught one guy. I was involved in the case where he had sold over
$250,000 worth monetarily of fake lunar samples. He knew they were fake.
This person supposedly had been given the sample and thought it was
real and they were selling it. That’s the usual story. They agreed
not to sell it and they didn’t, and eBay didn’t let him
advertise it on their thing once they realized it certainly wasn’t
for sure. This was quite a while ago. This was right around 2000. I
hadn’t been in the job very long when this one came up. It was
a federal prosecutor from Phoenix [Arizona]. The thing happened in Phoenix.
So I was talking to the federal prosecutor. Actually wound up being
a federal prosecutor here in Houston, Mike somebody. I can’t remember
his name. He died of cancer recently. Anyway, so he was a young guy
actually, and he came here to Houston. The local IG person brought him
to me, and we talked about it.
He showed me the samples. I took one look at them and I said, “Well,
they’re not lunar. I can tell you that.” He said, “Well,
we need hard evidence, because this could be a court case.” So
it wasn’t just looking at them. I had to get some analytical data,
which was easy to do. We got some analytical data which I could document
they were not lunar.
The guy wound up pleading it out. He went to jail for 22 months, I guess.
He had sold little tiny pieces about this big [demonstrates], and he
had about four or five of these pieces in a little case, and he had
made a nice-looking plaque to put them on. He was selling them for between
$10K and $20K apiece. To get $250,000 worth, it was about 20 of these
or something, I forget. They weren’t all the same price. But anyway,
around 20 of these had been sold to different people. People probably
just lost. They had their thing, but it wasn’t [real]. They could
have sued. They could go after him, I guess, and sue him or something
in a civil court. He went to jail for fraud, but then he’s open
to civil suits obviously. I have no idea whether anybody did that or
not or just bit their tongue and took their loss. I don’t know,
but that’s happened. That was the worst case of fraud that I’ve
come in contact with.
The guy that stole the samples from our building, from 31, went to jail
for eight years. He just got out this year. He was in federal [prison].
That was a federal case. You serve 85% of your term minimum, when it’s
federal. You don’t get off at half your term. So he did eight
years. He actually got out and wrote some article, a pretty bizarre
article, about how he stole the samples. It was 90% fiction. He talked
about putting on wetsuits to avoid the heat sensors in our security
system. Well, we had no heat sensors in our security system, and that
wouldn’t have worked anyway. He put together this fantastical
story about how this had all gone down, and even had sex with one of
the postdocs on the bed with the rocks. This was really bizarre, I tell
you. The guy, he’s lost it, I don’t know where he’s
going now.
There’s no real profit in it, you’re going to get caught
sooner or later dealing with this kind of thing. Too many people pay
attention. Too many people know that you can’t buy real Apollo
Moon rocks. You can buy lunar meteorites. There are lunar rocks that
come to the Earth as meteorites that you can buy. They’re out
there, and there are guys that have them and can sell them, and there’s
a market. It’s not cheap. Average price for a piece of lunar meteorite
is $2,000 a gram. So calculate that out. Multiply that by 28, that’s
how much an ounce would cost. Multiply that by 16, and that’s
how much a pound would be. It’s pretty expensive stuff. Price
goes up to $50,000, $100,000 in a hurry. You can get it, but it’s
expensive. It’s about the same price as Martian meteorite samples,
about $2,000 plus or minus $500 a gram. That’s a pretty well established
price now. There’s a lot of dealers out there. They don’t
sell it for less than that.
Scientists try to get their hands on some of these lunar meteorites,
but they have to buy it. Scientists can get some of it because before
a guy can sell it as a lunar meteorite, it needs to be verified. The
typical scenario—if they think they have a Martian meteorite or
a lunar meteorite, they’ll give a piece of it to a reputable scientist
who then will study it and publish about it, verifying what it is. Then
this guy can sell it for big money. Without that kind of authentication,
they’re not going to convince people that it’s real.
Ross-Nazzal: Not
for those prices.
Lofgren: Exactly.
There has to be this authentication and this traceability to be able
to get those kinds of prices. So scientists do get their hands on pieces.
Sometimes the pieces are pretty big, and they’d like to get their
hands on more of it than they get, but that doesn’t always happen.
Some particularly spectacular pieces—a couple of the museums have
bought some or traded even. They have a bunch of meteorites that were
valuable too. They would trade a whole bunch of meteorites for one piece
of this one. Some of the museums have done that kind of thing, but that’s
legal.
One of the frivolous requests I got was a guy who wanted to give his
bride-to-be a piece of Moon rock on her ring. I said, “They’re
not very pretty.”
Ross-Nazzal: They
don’t sparkle.
Lofgren: “They
just look like ordinary rocks, they’re not going to be all that
spectacular. I can’t give you an Apollo sample for that purpose.
But if you want to buy a piece of meteorite,” I gave him a website.
“You can go to this website. It’s going to cost almost as
much as a diamond. If you want to try and do that, welcome to it.”
That’s one of the more bizarre emails I’ve gotten. I think
the person was serious. I think he really wanted to do that. I never
heard from him again, so I have no idea what he wound up doing.
I get little things like that once in a while. I’ll never forget
a guy named [A.R.] “Babe” Schwartz. You remember Babe Schwartz?
He was a local state politician here for this area for many years. I
don’t know whether he was in the state senate or house. When NASA
was young, he was one of the guys. Apparently when he retired, had a
big retirement thing, he got this Moon rock. He got this rock. After
he retired, he was going around to schools and showing off his Moon
rock and talking about it and doing things. His son got this sample
and sent it to me.
I looked at it. It was not a Moon rock. It was a model that had been
made of a Moon rock. I was a fairly good plastic model, painted very
nicely, on a little stick, mounted on a little plaque. The plaque didn’t
really say it was a model. It said Moon rock 10022 blah blah blah, on
and on and on, but never really said this was a model.
Well, if everybody had rock 10022 and it was the whole rock, that means
we didn’t have any. The same rock had obviously just multiplied.
It was a very nice model. I had to tell the guy, “Sorry, this
is not. I’m handing it back to you. This is a plastic model. If
you want to take a knife and carve into it you’ll see, and ruin
the paint job.” He wrote a big article in one of the Washington
papers about it, it was like an op-ed piece about how all this had happened
and gone down. They published it. He sent me a copy of it. He was very
disappointed, of course. He was glad his dad didn’t find this
out before he died.
That particular model has come into play half a dozen times. I had one
just recently. They were describing this sample they had, and it was
this model again. I just wrote back and said, “No, that’s
a plastic model. If you do this and this, you’ll figure that out.”
It’s usually, “No, no, no, no, it can’t be, I have
it on good authority that this was given by Neil [A.] Armstrong to so-and-so
and they gave it to so-and-so and then my dad got it.” The number
of rocks that Neil Armstrong gave away would be half the collection
if you believe every [story]. Neil of course wouldn’t even give
an autograph, let alone a Moon rock.
So it’s all silly, but it’s amazing the number of people.
You have to burst their bubble. That gets sad sometimes. This one poor
old elderly lady was just crushed when I had to tell her, “No,
sorry, it’s a model.” She was just crushed. It was really
sad. She really thought she had something. It has its bad moments, I
guess, sometimes. You hate to do this, but you got to. You can’t
gloss it over. Just have to say, “No, sorry.”
I have not yet found a real rock in the hands of anybody for all the
supposed rocks that are out there. Not one has ever been real. There
is this issue that’s going on right now. You’re aware of
it, with these gift rocks. There was this one that [Joseph R.] Gutheinz
did this sting and wound up confiscating this sample that had been presented
to Honduras. It’s a little unclear how this person got this sample,
but it clearly was the sample from Honduras. He tells a story about
it. Who knows whether it’s true or not? So he had it in Florida,
and then when Gutheinz put this ad out that he was willing to buy lunar
samples, this guy tried to sell it to him.
I don’t remember the details. There was a court case. The court
allowed it to be confiscated. I don’t know how legal that really
[was]. It was no longer NASA property. Here was the NASA IG wanting
to get it back on the basis that it had been presented to this country
and really shouldn’t be in private hands. I guess that was the
basis that the judge gave it back to NASA, who then gave it back to
Honduras in a formal ceremony in DC. They got the Honduran ambassador
over and had a big ceremony and presented the rock back to him again.
That’s the only one of those I’ve seen. I’ve heard
about others anecdotally. I’m sure there are others that got in
the hands of private individuals. Particularly in countries where the
leaders can be dictators, suspect. They think the rock was presented
to them, and take possession of it, not the country, etc. So that kind
of thing I’m sure has happened.
I know samples have gone out on the market. Gutheinz is unfortunately
raising a little dust around because somebody needs to be more clear
that these aren’t NASA rocks anymore. So I’ve had to deal
with that, as you well know.
Ross-Nazzal: Do
you want to put that on the record? Because everyone keeps talking about
how we should have the records.
Lofgren: That’s
fine. No, I don’t mind that being on the record.
Ross-Nazzal: So
I keep explaining, but it’d be nice if we could say, “Well,
check out Gary Lofgren’s oral history. Here’s the scoop.”
Lofgren: These
samples were handed out to heads of state, and we presented the samples
to the State Department, who took care of all the foreign presentations.
The domestic ones I think were done through our PAO [Public Affairs]
Office and astronauts if I’m not mistaken, but I don’t even
know that for sure. We turned them over to Headquarters. Headquarters
either gave them to the State Department or did it themselves. I can’t
find all the records. I wasn’t involved then. We just have records
that they were allocated to Headquarters and taken off our books. That’s
all we know. You’ve tried to find out more and have not been successful.
Ross-Nazzal: Not
at all.
Lofgren: This last
article I was reading made a big deal of that, quoted you.
Ross-Nazzal: Yes,
I saw that. I think that’s where that woman got my name and then
my phone number.
Lofgren: Yes. So
that’s created a little excitement recently. I just had an article
from one of the National Geographic writers. Now they’re a little
more reputable publication. It’s an independent person who does
the fact checking for all articles that get published in National Geographic.
She sent an email to me and Lou [Louis A.] Parker asking a bunch of
questions. The question of those samples came up not directly, but certainly
was part of the article.
I did a few corrections to it. The guy was trying to talk about the
Russian sample as detritus. I thought well, that’s a little derogatory.
They weren’t detritus. They were legitimate pieces of lunar soil
that the Russians collected and brought back. It was soil, it wasn’t
rocks, but little tiny rocks. It certainly wasn’t detritus. That
has a negative connotation. I said, “No, that’s not appropriate.”
National Geographic does have one of our display specimens. He referred
to that display specimen in his article as a gift to the National Geographic
Society. I had to point out that, “No, there’s a loan agreement
that’s renewable every five years that Lou Parker has on his books,”
and, “No, it’s not a gift, it’s a loan, and you’re
responsible for all this stuff, and NASA can recall them at any time
if they choose to.”
That had to be corrected. There was a couple other things that weren’t
quite right in the article, but she was very good. She was going to
correct all these things. She said she’ll send me a copy of the
issue when it comes out, just a one-page thing. They had a picture of
their display sample with a paragraph at the bottom. It was like a medium-size
paragraph about the value of rocks, and how they’ve gotten precious,
and until we go back and get more they’re still precious things.
All fair enough. It just had a few facts that were not really dead wrong
but just not appropriate kind of thing. He just said, “Well, NASA
is missing all these samples.” I said, “Well, that’s
not quite right. Let’s rephrase that. These countries are missing
their samples, not NASA.”
Ross-Nazzal: Big
difference.
Lofgren: I got
an urgent email from a professor at the University of Minnesota [Minneapolis]
that I know very well over the years. He’s a lunar PI and I know
him personally very well. He says, “Gary, this student of Gutheinz
is coming to me and saying they want to find the Minnesota sample.”
Ross-Nazzal: Yes,
they’ve been all over.
Lofgren: He says,
“What is this stuff? Did Minnesota get a sample?” He didn’t
even remember the distribution of these gift rocks. I pointed out to
him, “Yes, and I suggest that you go to whatever building the
governor sits in, the state capitol or whatever that building is, different
states call it different things.” Sure enough, he went over there
and inquired. The sample was on display in the state capitol building,
appropriately. The kid was happy, went away. They found the sample.
That’s usually the answer I give. “Look at the building
where the governor sits, it’s probably there.” Not always.
Sometimes it’s in a back room. It’s not always on display,
I’ve found. Sometimes they’re stored away somewhere. They
usually find them. I haven’t heard any state ones that are documented
as missing yet. Doesn’t mean there aren’t some, but I haven’t
heard of any yet where really they absolutely cannot find it. Most places
when they seriously looked, they found it eventually.
That program had its ups and downs. It was nice to do it, but it’s
created a little bit of hassle. Nothing we can’t live with, but
it has created a little bit. Gutheinz actually called me earlier this
week.
Ross-Nazzal: Oh,
did he?
Lofgren: Yes, he
was asking me a question about something. I said, “You’re
creating a little bit of extra work for me.” He says, “Yes,
I know. I didn’t really mean to do that. I try to tell them, too,
but nobody wants to listen to me, nobody wants to hear that they’re
not NASA property. Nobody wants to hear that.” I talked to the
guy from the LA Times, and the minute I started describing all this
he really lost interest. I could tell. He was all excited when I first
talked to him. The more I described the program and what happened, I
could tell he was disappointed.
Ross-Nazzal: Well,
yes, it’s a great scoop to say NASA lost these rocks.
Lofgren: The story
went away. It wasn’t as big a story as it sounded like it might
be initially. So yes, it’s been really interesting these last
few months with this going on.
Ross-Nazzal: Yes,
I’d like to go over to Archives II [National Archives, College
Park, Maryland] and see if there’s any materials. Now I’m
looking at my watch. It’s after 4:00. I had a few more questions
for you, but I don’t know what your schedule is like.
Lofgren: I can
stay another ten, 15 minutes. I do need to get back to my office before
I leave, before it’s too late.
Ross-Nazzal: I’ll
finish up with these two questions we ask other folks. Then if we have
time I’ll ask you about the other two. What do you think was your
most challenging milestone while working for the space agency?
Lofgren: Working
with the crews and those kinds of things were really challenging, but
the biggest milestone and the thing I came to NASA to do was to build
a laboratory to test a scientific idea I had basically as a graduate
student. To build that laboratory, to do the experiments, to prove myself
right, to get out, and prove it was definitely the biggest milestone
of my career. Working with the crews was another big milestone, but
that was self-defined. This other one was just open-ended. You really
had to do it. Doing the training, I was part of a team, and if I didn’t
do my job everybody else would have. Everything wasn’t dependent
on me, where this other thing that I was doing, it was mine to do or
not do right. That was probably a bigger deal. That was important for
me scientifically to establish myself and my career. So that was important.
Ross-Nazzal: What
do you think has been your biggest accomplishment?
Lofgren: I’d
have to say that again. Any young scientist coming out of school wants
to establish themselves and be recognized for that. That is the accomplishment.
Reaching that goal and doing it. Having this idea in your head. My idea
was not the accepted norm. It was a little bit different, and it took
a lot more to get it accepted than an idea that’s much more in
the mainstream of what science was doing. It was a little tougher to
do that than some things. I don’t know how to describe it any
better than that. I don’t want to go into all the technical scientific
details. It was an idea that nobody had really thought of in quite that
way. I was able to do the experiments and prove that that was the case.
That has now become a field of study that other people are doing. That
becomes the reward, I guess. Other people believe you, and they start
doing the same kinds of things for other projects.
Ross-Nazzal: Would
you share with us the details of putting that Moon rock on STS-119 that’s
now I think at the [Smithsonian] Air and Space Museum [Washington, DC]?
Lofgren: Actually,
it’s sitting here in Houston in Louis Parker’s safe for
the moment. Louis broached the subject to me three or four months before
the mission was to take off. They were talking about a 40th anniversary
activity. They really wanted an Apollo 11 sample. We went, “Oh,
well, hmm, this is not going to be easy, we don’t have a lot of
Apollo 11 samples left that we can use for display rocks,” because
that was the least number of material we collected, was during Apollo
11. There are several display samples out there already. The material
is getting a bit more scarce.
“Well, it doesn’t have to be real big.” I said, “Okay,
well, let me look and see what we’ve got.” I did find a
20-gram piece in our return collection. It’s about that big. [Demonstrates]
You could say a square about that big. It wasn’t quite square,
obviously, but that would be a fair representation. We had a case. This
had already been exposed to air. It was being stored in air. It wasn’t
a pristine sample anymore. It had gone to be studied, and they chipped
off a few pieces and studied them, and this came back.
I talked with my boss, and we talked with the CAPTEM committee. They
said, “Okay, yes, we can take this returned sample and we can
do that. It’s not going to disappear, we hope.” There’s
certain events in which it could I guess, but we don’t want to
think about those. We had one of the first kinds of display cases that
we created, which didn’t turn out to be very good. They were about
this diameter. [Demonstrates] So it would hold this size sample pretty
well. It had a little dome on it. Domes turn out not to be good things
for visibility because they get reflections off them at all angles.
It’s hard to find the right angle to look at a sample in a dome.
That’s why we went to this triangular case.
This was the perfect thing for this. We were able to put a sample in
one of these domes, and it was small enough that the whole thing weighed
a couple pounds. Weight wise it wasn’t an issue, although the
ceremony turned out to be fairly anticlimactic. I did manage to see
a two-minute clip where the commander of the—I don’t know.
Did you see that clip?
Ross-Nazzal: No,
I didn’t. I saw the article about the rock.
Lofgren: He showed
it and talked about it for about two minutes. It was shown on the NASA
channel. Do you remember the Neil deGrasse Tyson event? There was an
event the day before. Then there was an event on the evening of the
20th, and Neil Tyson was the emcee of that. That was the show. They
had it on that. They showed the commander up in space on film. NASA
had filmed this, obviously, and the clip was replayed. I recorded that
show thinking it might happen, and it did. I do have it. I was able
to pull that off my DVR, although I could probably get the clip from
PAO with no problem. But anyway I have the clip. It was like a minute
and a half long. It’s anticlimactic, but it was done.
Now it’s come back. It’s here in Houston. I got a call from
the guy who had it. He wanted to give it to me. Then I had a gas leak
in my house, so I had to stay home last Thursday and Friday dealing
with that and the plumber, getting a plumber out to deal with him, all
that kind of stuff. They wound up giving it to Louis, and Louis said
he has it in his safe now. There are some plans for it to go on display,
but that’s where it is at the moment.
It was interesting getting it on board. We brought it over. They wanted
to know about all the materials ahead of time. I gave them samples of
the materials from other cases that were assembled so they could test
the materials for volatility and flammability. They don’t want
to take things up that can burn easily or that give off odors or that
kind of thing.
This had been sitting around for 40 years, so if it was going to give
off odors it gave them off a long time ago. They were happy with the
materials, so it got manifested. Then I wound up going to two or three
other evaluations. First it was going to go on as a personal kit kind
of thing, which doesn’t get treated so seriously, but then it
got manifested. That was a whole other level of testing and verification.
I went to a couple other committees and did the same kind of thing.
It was no simple matter to get this sample on the Shuttle to go up to
Station. Eventually it did, as you know. Now it’s come back on
[STS]-128 I guess it was, whatever.
Ross-Nazzal: I’m
not sure.
Lofgren: Went up
on 119. Then there was 125 and then 128. I’m not sure. I think
it didn’t quite get on 125. Think it came back. Whatever one.
It’s the one that just came back. [Returned on STS-128]
Ross-Nazzal: We’ll
figure out which flight it is.
Lofgren: It’s
been in Florida for quite a while. The stuff doesn’t get taken
off, and it gets stored there, and then it was a couple, three months
before it came here. It wasn’t the one that just came back. It’s
the one before that, whichever one that was. It is back here in Houston
now, and it will go on tour at some point. It’s a nice rock. It’s
actually a vesicular rock. It’s got lots of sparklies and shinies.
It looks nice.
Ross-Nazzal: You
did say I think in the article that Neil Armstrong had picked up this
rock. This is one of his rocks.
Lofgren: Yes, he
grabbed a bunch of rocks and threw them in the box in a hurry, and this
was one of those. He didn’t pick it up individually and say, “I’m
collecting this rock.” He was just putting things in the box as
fast as he could, because it was clear that we were running out of time.
He only had a few more minutes on the surface, and the rock box was
sitting there empty. He says, “I don’t want to bring home
an empty box, that’s not fun, there’s just a couple little
things in it.” He got real busy and filled it up, which was great.
Otherwise we’d have gotten a third or a fourth of what we got
on Apollo 11 if he hadn’t done that. That was good thinking on
his part. He says, “I’m not going back with an empty box.
Not on my watch.”
Ross-Nazzal: Practical
guy. We thank you very much for coming in today. I’m sorry for
the delay in scheduling.
Lofgren: That’s
okay. That hasn’t bothered me, not at all.
[End of interview]
Return to JSC Oral History Website
|