Parents can leave wealth, in the form of cash, business, real estate, or in this case memorabilia, to their heirs. They can also leave a mountain of debt due to end of life issues. A fault of the system, not of ailing seniors.
The Armstrong boys are lucky winners in this cruel lottery, and I do not begrudge them a whit for using the timing of the 50 year anniversary to maximize the value of their inheritance, any more than one might choose to time the sale of inherited stock.
Nothing is going to tarnish the legacy of Neil Armstrong. Good luck to the boys and thanks to them for doing some measure of good with some of the money they have inherited. They are under no real obligation to do so.
Our "president" has inherited vastly more and done less than good with it. In fact, he has leveraged that wealth to inflict harm on many.
99
@Ben K If you can check out Steve Cuozzo’ NY Post piece from 2016. He list all the NY buildings Trump built when no one would invest in this city. For one the Central Park skating ring ,that the corrupt NY politicians tried to build for six years and couldn’t in the 1980’s. It’s worth your time to read.
3
@Ben K
shall we wait to see the measure of good they do with the money?
i will not hold my breath
11
@Ben K agreed. When the president of the united states is a notorious and obvious grifter why hold these poor people to higher standards? Neil Armstrong was a great american hero of a bygone era that still cared for more than chasing money. But we are not those people any longer and no reason to pretend otherwise.
8
"The Right Stuff" may have been referring to how much personal items the astronauts could sneak into their capsule to later sign and sell.
Methinks that NASA needs the TSA working the gate to our spaceships.
To the best of my knowledge, even though he probably deserved one, General Eisenhower didn't get to take home a Sherman Tank to give to his heirs.
3
This material belongs to them. Their father left it to them. Why is it any ones business but theirs. Get back to reporting on something important.
1
More muckraking. Who needs the National Enquirer when we have the new NYT?
3
Clearly dad wouldn't have approved or he would have done it while still alive.
But it is theirs to do what they want. Family dynamics are difficult and after the death of a parent it can all go to hell.
2
I join many others in saying all this seems so unseemly.
To paraphrase the Pope "who are we to judge?"
Family dynamics and politics can be more lethal and poisonous than any we have in DC today.
But my point is how NASA does not offer these less than a dozen men - special medical assistance.
During their time on NASA payroll - each was attended by specialists and doctors that would fill a hospital.
Yet, after they left - nothing to these men who are genuine heroes.
It is as if Washington was rushed to a municipal hospital in Mount Vernon - at least in Mr. Armstrong case.
Luckily for Neil Armstrong - he will hear or read nothing of this.
Nothing his family does or does not - will ever make us forget that Mr. Armstrong is
"First on the moon, first in hearts of people the world over."
1
If anything can be taken away from this article, it’s the point of planning what one wants to do with the material “stuff” after death. Neil Armstrong had two families-one had cashed in on his fame; the other believed that he would not have wanted his personal items sold for profit.
Guess what folks? If you do not indicate in writing (known as your last will and testament) how you wish your material possessions to be handled after your death, then your heirs can do whatever they want with them. Death does strange things to the surviving family-even close families can turn on each other and oftentimes cause irreparable harm. Verbally telling that you want your firstborn son to have the family silver, and the firstborn daughter that she gets mom’s diamond engagement ring may not be honored if you have three or more kids. What if the firstborn son doesn’t have children? Maybe that family heirloom silver should go to the next son who has the children who will be carrying on the family name.
I understand how a lot of the readers have been disappointed and/or disgusted with the actions of Mr. Armstrong’s sons, grandchildren, etc., but it is their right to dispose of their inheritance as they wish.
This is no one's business. Hopefully his children will use some of the money for positive environmental reasons. Lord knows that greed and gluttony have done great damage to the planet their Dad looked back upon.
1
In a weird way, why leave a bunch of stuff in the attics if they have no use of items while the public are clamoring for a piece of history? Everyone benefits
Who has the high ground to judge the intimate and - what should be - private relationship between a father and his sons?
1
Some, actually most of these comments are shockingly harsh.
Is this private matter any of our business?
Ironic that the kids say they want to start an environmental fund because of the damage done to the earth by man.
I cannot think of any group of people doing more damage to the earth without consent or oversight of "mankind" than NASA, SPACE X, Blue Origin and the US Air Force. California bans almost anything they deem not to their liking to save the children, fish, air, whatnot.... Yet Elon Musk shoots a car into space for no reason, raining toxins over California's sacred skies and nobody cares. Again, it's ironic.
this whole storyline seem so crass.
1
Why all this anger over what is essentially no one’s business but the family?
You would think some of the the commenters were cut out of the will.
1
What a sordid, tawdry tale.
The historical items related to his space adventures belong in a museum or archives collection, not spread among wealthy private citizens.
2
The statement by the lawyer for the grandchildren — about how Grandpa could “innocently pave ways into college admissions,” and “magically open any door,” and how the loss of that merits more money — is absolutely sickening. It’s tortured logic.
There’s nothing innocent about cashing in on your connection to a heroic figure. And there’s nothing magical about subverting the college admissions process for selfish benefit.
3
As someone who was able to obtain an item during the Armstrong auction, I applaud the decision to make those items available to people. Rather than collecting dust, those items are now in the hands of admirers of a very special man.
The father was refined, dignified, distinguished and noble. There disconnect between what he was and the sons' leap to cash in on any possible opportunity to enrich themselves, not honor their father. The cheesy merchandising makes me wildly uncomfortable.
26
There would be no cash settlement for the death of an unknown 82 year old man dying under these circumstances.
17
They are not doing anything illegal and although their father would not approve their father had ample time to either bequeath these keepsakes to the Smithsonian or a museum of his own choosing. He left them to his sons and they have every right to do with as they please. They have children too and they have an obligation to take care of them. Neil left a legacy greater than these objects and that will never be taken away. Leave his children alone!
12
All of the stuff associated with Armstrong is just that—stuff. His legacy lies in what he did and how he lived.
While many here are appalled at the notion of children cashing in, I imagine that many who buy these items will enjoy them far more than if they were sitting in a family-owned storage space. And each piece might go to someone for whom its presence could be deeply inspirational or transformative. And whether the family does good or ill with the money, does it really much matter? I'm sure having a father of such stature brings with is many challenges—It's far from me to judge.
(But a signed report card? That one item struck me as weird.)
7
@Matt a very compassionate interpretation. agree on the report card. fishy to me.
Neil Armstrong always struck me as a modest man despite his tremendous achievements. The sons are apples who seem to have fallen very far from their father’s tree. They strike me as crass, the very opposite of him. Mr. Armstrong’s position on publicly trading in on his name and fame had to be known to them yet they waited until after he had died to do just that, and at the 50th anniversary of the moon landing no less. I get that as his heirs they had a right to do with his property as they saw fit, but this just seems incredibly tacky and somewhat heartless. (And don’t get me started on the daughter-in-law or the grandchildren, all of whom seem equally grasping. The statement on what the grandchildren will miss out on now that Mr. Armstrong is no longer alive - college admissions assured, pride at social functions - was awful and hurtful to read. It made me sad for Mr. Armstrong, even though he’s no longer here.) Couldn’t the sons have donated this memorabilia to the Smithsonian if they didn’t want it? The sale of the teddy bear was really heartbreaking. Imagine that loved toy in a museum where children could see it and reflect that its owner was once a child too, but grew up to become a famous astronaut. The museum would have been able to care for and conserve the toy, as it is no doubt fragile, but now some private citizen has it and who knows what will become of it, as well as hundreds of other items of historical import. What a sad end to a great American’s legacy.
18
Kubrick is laughing upstairs.
3
Not only would Neil Armstrong have disapproved, but would have been ashamed of his children's greed and shameless exploitation of his legacy. Only the lowest of the low would sell their father's teddy bear, a letter that he sent to the Easter Bunny ,and other items that their father had treasured since childhood.
Mrs. Armstrong and the step-children are class acts.
"Would Dad Approve ?"
I
Neil Armstrong would have approved and been proud of his wife and step-children, and would been ashamed of his own children.
22
Selling personal items is their choice but the NASA items are government property. That money should remain with the public.
9
Why don’t they donate to The Smithsonian or The Air and Space Museum ??
8
Sadly everything is for sale. They could have donated it all to the Smithsonian instead.
17
Move on. He is gone. Let the family do what they want to do in 2019.
11
There is no logical reason to expect Neil Armstrong’s sons to share his admirable old-school values. It is, of course, a human thing to expect that a great man’s descendants will turn out to be like the parent. But reality has a mind of its own and rarely conforms to expectations.
10
Ick. Ick. The "Holy Grail," indeed. This is the holy grail of rapacity and greed. Gee whiz, are there any fingernail clippings they have forgotten to hawk?
22
The sons are avarice scoundrels. No other way around it. Selling the dad's stuff, suing hospitals/doctors, etc. Please, they're nothing but money grubbers. I'm sorry, but do you know the risks involved when someone near or over 80 undergoes surgery???? Many doctors wouldn't even advice it. Why sue offer what was a given risk? Greed, that's why!
19
So many people saying Save your indignation.
Can we also put out there Save your Cynicism to those claiming that every and anyone in the position of the sons would do the same thing?
4
@VPM It would not seem so bad if it were not for the fact that they knew their father's feelings beforehand. I could understand what they did if they didn't know, but they and many others it seems knew exactly how he felt.
And I say shame on them.
10
It doesn’t sound like any true artefacts were sold off on this occasion. I suspect Mr Armstrong made arrangements for the really historical items long ago. The sale merely reflects on the personal tastes of the sellers and buyers. But what interests me is that a legal claim on the hospital can be made by anyone other than the direct next of kin (his wife).
8
The day you die it's over. Neil Armstrong did what he thought best while he had control.
5
The auctions by the sons is disgusting.
20
Here's an idea - how about it's no one's business what his family does with his personal effects? I don't have much, and what I have isn't that valuable, but when I'm dead, do you honestly think I'll really care what happens to my stuff? Yes, his stuff is more historicaly important than mine, but as George Carlin so eloquently opined, it's just stuff, period.
10
“When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”
--- H.L. Mencken
42
When passing judgment on his children bear in mind that at one time he was a very distant father.
9
Literally.
32
Typical human greed. Cashing in on stuff one did not earn, but just inherited.
11
Shame on them.
Are they not confident in their own abilities to be self sufficient and not sponge off their father’s brilliant life?
12
It is just stuff. Museums are full of astronaut stuff. I wish somebody would buy my old magazines and the rest of my stuff.
5
My mother bought our family home with her inheritance. After she died, my dad moved and bought another house and remarried. That wife died and he gave the house to her sons. The hard work of generations of my mother's family ended up in the hands of some people I didn't know because my dad felt sorry for them...adult men who (I think) played my dad for a sap.
Nothing we could do. The house belonged to my father and he disposed of his property the way he wanted. But there were three daughters who wished they could have had some say in that give away.
It's a roll of the dice. Accept it and move on.
16
Who took care of him in his dotage?
2
@W.H. - What business is that of yours?
3
I am surprised, if the cardiologist was truly a friend of Mr. Armstrong (his widow's reason for not want to get involved in malpractice suit), why the cardiologist didn't recommend Mr. Armstrong have this procedure at the best hospital in the region, which I can only assume (1) was not this hospital and (2) was known to the cardiologist.
4
If Neil Armstrong cared so much about what would happen to the artifacts after his death, he would have made provisions in his will (leave to a museum, university, etc). His heirs have every right to do what they wish with them.
10
The 50 years span from the moon landing to the present time has seen a diminution of "pure virtue" in Americans.
As in most things which change over time, one can point to many root causes, but having lived through this time period and more, I believe that the increased awareness of the ethical shortcomings of our nation's leadership magnified by media of all stripes, has pulled back the curtain of American politics. What we have seen is bleak. A diminution of Statesmen, an increase in vile partisanship, and as of late an intentional fracturing of comity.
Surely the election of DJT (with a little or lot of help from his Russian friends) demonstrates just how far this mighty nation has fallen! We are daily faced with sometimes profane, sometimes incoherent, and usually untrue statements from this valueless man. In three short years he has subverted a major political party, cast aside allies, held close despots, thwarted the Constitution, promoted nepotism, autocracy, and kleptocracy... with no push-back from Republicans.
This has created an America of those who have... and those who have not, with the "haves" believing that bettering the lot of the "have nots" will come at some cost to themselves.
In this atmosphere it is not surprising that the Armstrong children might go against the wishes of their American Hero Dad. With a President of this ilk, regular folks certainly have no incentive to be circumspect in their own lives.
3
I’m no fan of Trump and there’s plenty not to like about our current climate. But glorifying the “pure values” of our past strikes me as dubious at best.
2
@Phil Zaleon
I'm virtuous in the most important way (I think), in that I don't believe in war or the killing of others for politics or monetary gain. Unless he hurries up and starts a big war, DJT has not been a hawk for war (despite major rhetoric and minor conflict).
I must ask hat was virtuous about incinerating Asian folks for the entirety of the early space program?
After my parents died a greedy brother split up an 8th generation farm.
My advice: a good trust attorney.
I don’t have much but have made a list of who gets what. I can’t imagine my 3 daughters fighting over things. But some families do.
Some siblings are greedy and opportunistic.
14
It's their property to do with as they wish. Their mother and father are gone and they themselves are middle aged. If his second wife has things of his she wishes to keep, she should. That is her right. But I don't think the sons ought to keep things they don't need or want.
2
Who are you to judge Mr. Armstrong's sons? Did the materials belong to them? If so, they can do as they wish.
What I'd like to know is to what Mr. Armstrong was referring when he gave a speech at the White House in the '90s and referenced "truth's protective layers".
May he rest in peace.
2
If the alternative was carting off all the items to a landfill, what's the big deal? At least someone will find enjoyment in the items.
4
The Apollo program was conducted at 100% taxpayer expense. Private individuals should not be personally benefiting monetarily from it. As to the teddy bear, I couldn't care less.
11
As someone who sued in a wrongful death suit, I think that the Armstrongs needed to use whatever they could to make the defendant pay for their negligence.
I had the defendants (large pharma company and well-known supply chain co.) in my case make light of my mother's life which was taken too soon. They tried to say my mother wouldn't have been able to care for my father, as our case was mostly about how my mom's death left the family scrambling to figure out dad's care. The other lawyers didn't say it in a nice way, and all the while we were suffering due to my mom's tragic death.
As to how the Armstrongs split the money up, that's up to them. Most of what we got after lawyer fees is going towards my father's care. But that doesn't replace the companionship and love for my 85-year-old dad.
8
@missivy
Spot on. This is about making sure the hospital that was responsible will feel hurt enough to change protocols. If there was not a large pay out, I’m betting hospitals would not care about changing anything.
5
The hospital lawsuit was all about greed. If they truly were thinking "so they would not happen to.spmebody else", they would have made the incident public instead of blackmailing the hospital and signing about a confidentiality agreement. Just because their last name is Armstrong, it doesnt mean they are not greedy people who resorted to blackmail to make a buck out of their father's death.
8
No. It’s about anger and greed. Bad things can happen in medical care, people are not perfect.
The quality assurance programs that are in place do surely need change, but that will not be solved by the greed attorneys and plaintiffs bring to the equation. In this case, the family was right to question the management, but at least some of that award would be better spent trying to fix the system so others may benefit.
1
Any better alternative? Put 'em in trust and give someone else the opportunity to steal. Keep the in the family where they will be allowed to deteriorate, misappropriated and worse? These sons are doing as I would. In am sure that they've retained material by which to remember him.
8
@Francis How about donating them to a museum. I'm sure they would be desired by the Smithsonian or other space and science museums around the country. Donations would honor Neil Armstrong's life and contributions. Does everything in life have to be about enriching yourself?
10
How about a museum so children could always remember him? How about an endowed chair at the university where he taught?
11
@FrancisWho sells the teddy bear or letters to the Easter Bunny that were their fathers. Yes, at my in the winter of my time I have sold some items and my kids have others, but those two really jumped out at me. They cared so much they sold his childhood items and right it was not to make money for themselves. I think when he had his lawyer write a letter to the barber about the sale of his hair he indicated what he believed in. More than likely a messy divorce and the kids and ex wife getting it back, Jim Trautman
10
This is for no one else to judge. The paper should know better. To grow up with a famous father is incredibly difficult.
70
@Grittenhouse
sorry, but when mr. armstrong so vehemently made it known he was against ANY financial gain from his moon landing, his sons can certainly be judged!
52
@Grittenhouse Do you know that from personal experience, or are you just guessing.
9
Actually as tax payers we do get to judge as we financed the events that made their father famous. Least they could do was donate the items. Selling the teddy bear tells you all you need to know about them.
49
If Mr. Armstrong fully grasped the import of his place in history, which was more than likely, he would have arranged for the disposition of all articles in his estate specifically. While his death was certainly untimely, it wasn’t out the range of possibility that his demise might be the outcome, just as the possibility of the same was present in his days as an astronaut. The point is that Mr. Armstrong was more than acquainted with his own mortality on a sooner than later basis. And, he understood his place in human history. For all the Greek-chorusing taking place in the comments section passing judgement on his sons’ actions and their benefiting financially from the sale of some items, it’s truly not for anyone outside the family to be putting their subjective opinion forth on what’s hardly an objective subject. Neil Armstrong’s place in history is more than assured. His estate sounds complicated, and Mr. Armstrong should have set it up to a more specific degree if he wanted such specificity to occur. The sons have done nothing wrong, and it was their responsibility to make those decisions as they saw fit; everybody else’s opinions, just noise.
6
All these comments by people who in the same situation would cash in, I’m sure. Easy to be on a high horse when you have no skin in the game. Many of these items would be of no interest to a museum but a space fanatic would find them valuable.
This stuff belongs to the family to do with what they wish, I’m tired of all this indignation.
82
I wonder how many critical commenters who - if due a $500,000 share of the auction - would instead support giving the whole collection to a public museum? My guess is none.
6
Nobody gets to sell my teddy bear. Just saying.
48
@Stephen GianelliOh, come on they sold his teddy bear it had no meaning in the family and was connected to their dad. As for the rest of us this material belonged in a museum, but of course in America everything even honor has a price and good capitalists want profits. i am surprised they did not put his body on display and have it travel the country for a price. By the way that material we paid for as tax payers and it would be nice for my grand kids and others to visit a museum and see it or a traveling show. Spare me people with money buy this material like paintings so they put in a private room and sit and look at it and the rest of us will never see it ever again. These were one of a kind items. Jim Trautman
23
I used to think that this type of behavior would not happen in loving, closely knit families. Then my 95-year old father died one and a-half year years ago.
Although my father left a will, there was not a lot of money involved. Instead, there was a fair amount of wrangling over some furniture and other such possessions. (There are five of us children and many grandchildren.)
What was even more surprising was how quickly our family fell apart. We no longer had family celebrations for Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving.
I guess that this was inevitable, but I didn’t think it would happen so quickly.
264
@Banjokatt, sad and not inevitable.
16
@Banjokatt Greed knows no skin color, so nice to see your family was green with greed and envy--welcome to capitalism.
2
Legacies are difficult for offspring. My father is a formidable man in the business world, retired now. He is no Armstrong, but for me a historic figure. Came from nothing, and built it all up.
I left it behind, moved far away, made my own living. But my two brothers are close. Time is ticking, and he will die soon. I love him, but want no part of the vultures swarming to get the inheritance. I hope I treated him well, but he was tough. Type A magnified.
Not sure he treated me all that well.
Greed is a powerful emotion. So is grief. Rather leave it all behind than gain something. For what? I am happy without.
25
I just don't understand why we feel the need to publicly air private family matters of an deceased public person and have everyone weigh in. These two gentlemen are well within their rights to sue the hospital for malpractice and auction off their late father's belongings. I'd hock everything I could if I had a late celebrity parent. Quit clutching your pearls.
9
I find this story sad. Neil Armstrong was a hero and also remarkably humble. But than ago you had Bing Crosbys widow selling off his golf clubs and underwear after he died.......
8
@Tony. From what I understand, Bing Crosby’s widow knew he would be o.k. with that. Neil Armstrong’s widow knew he would be opposed such things, because they had talked about it.
Leaving aside the question, does a national scientific museum want to display Crosby’s golf clubs? Is it important for American society to view them?
2
Family can be a help, or your worst enemy.
5
Well one thing that is clear is that his sons sure do love money.
7
Neil Armstrong was a decent man who resisted cashing in on his fame and modestly considered himself "only the frontman for a huge Nasa enterprise."
Donald Trump has a word for this: sucker.
8
@Baba - I’ll take Neil Armstrong any day over Donald Trump.
1
There are few human things more comedy and tragedy than trying to profit from winning the human biological DNA genetic lottery.
Few of us were as smart and wise as Queen Elizabeth II and Donald Trump.
C'est la vie!
Carol Armstrong and her kids repeatedly demonstrated a high level of decency and integrity. My kind of humans. Those "$on$"auctioned off their father's Teddy Bear? WHO does that? Wow!
28
Yes, there is a clear right and wrong here. Neil Armstrong was right and admirable. The rest of this story is Donald Trump level of wrong and disgusting..
7
@Bob sherman You can't be sure what is right or wrong in this case, but I'm pretty sure that your hagiographic devotion to Neil Armstrong is clouding your judgment. Please stop clutching your pearls in indignation.
1
Having been 12 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, and the sole American in a boarding school in England, I was heavily into the space program all the way from Gemini to the landing, building paper models of the various spacecraft and corresponding with the various flight centres—Goddard, Marshall etc.
In this respect I was famous as "The Space Yank" and was the only student allowed to stay up to watch the landing.
Throughout the rest of my life I admit to being puzzled that Armstrong retreated from the public eye and became a relative nobody. It wasn't his fault; rather, it was NASA's poor forward thinking. Why would they select an obviously introverted, basically shy man to be the first man on the moon? Oh, sure, I know the "best, most competent pilot" theory but hell, Lovell, Collins, Anders, Swigert, Cernan—the whole lot of them could easily have done the same job.
In some respects, Armstrong became U.S. State Property the moment he landed on the moon, much like the flag raisers at Iwo Jima. He should have interacted with the public to the fullest extent of his ability rather than retreat into a veritable shell, as was the case.
I personally was offended that this man who was selected above all my other heroes at the time would disappear and become just another Joe as far as I was concerned. And as far as I'm concerned, NASA made a huge error when they selected Armstrong to be the First Man.
4
Rick and Mark Armstrong are the two newest MAGA heroes. Cashing in on somebody else's dime, and then taking that it's for a good cause.
22
I know this will offend some people but Neil Armstrong should not have been the first man to walk on the moon. He was a terrible spokesperson for NASA and had the personality of a pet rock. Buzz Aldrin was the astronaut who should have stepped first on the moon. Buzz was everything Armstrong was not. Enthusiastic about space travel and a great spokesperson for NASA. Buzz was (is) the epitome of what an astronaut should be. I have a lot of respect for Armstrong but he was not the ideal front man by any means. Perhaps he was just too modest and humble for such an important role.
4
For my money that’s who you give this assignment to; the quietest guy in the room. Contrast that with the Navy Sea that killed bin Laden. That action never should have been glorified but yet we have multiple men that have claimed the “honor”, they have been quick to monetize it, and then they complain about unfair treatment.
16
@Mike L
NASA had considered Aldrin to be “First Man”, but Krantz along with efforts by Aldrin and his father to influence the decision soured NASA on that choice.
As for Armstrong, his modesty and humility is what most Americans approved of and respected him for, not to take away from Aldrin.
In truth, both were first to land on the moon...they did that together and at the same time.
18
Or maybe he was modest and humble to just the right degree.
14
Vultures.
5
Big mistakes were made in the healthcare secondary to the bypass procedure notwithstanding the fact that far too many hospitals offer the procedure. The rule of thumb is never get a bypass procedure except at the primary hospital of a Medical University (these programs have never turned down a case and they all look to improve on the total annual cases done each year ). And, no the Resident is not doing all the procedures and classically, the surgeon sewing the grafts is the bonafides professor who wants and needs to do the case to stay board certified, publish and increase the MD's income. However more smartly is a transfer to "the", or a major heart center like "The Cleveland Clinic" or "Baylor's Methodist Hospital" and numerous other that have very high powered catherization and bypass programs that work hand and glove. They do not turn away cases either. These programs love and need routine cases and yet can practice heroic medicine as well.
2
Even though they share half his genes, the sons are clearly not made of the same stuff as the father.
7
Reminds me of the children’s book
“More More More Said the Baby”
2
what should they do, store them in the basement no make as much money as you can and don't listen to people who say it's not proper.they should and did receive a settlement from the hospital. the hospital should have taken him into the o r instead of doing a catherization and losing time.also as I have seen and heard Armstrong was not father of the type.
2
One Giant Payday for Mark and Rick.
8
A Chinese provb says "wealth doesn't pass through 3 generations." Look around today's world, you can substitute the word wealth with lots of things: decency, humbleness, democracy...
5
Yeah, but it’s just tacky.
9
Neil could have donated all of his “stuff” during his lifetime and simply taken care of the issue. He didn’t or chose not to do so. When you are gone, there is nothing you can do to control what your heirs do with their inheritances and the “stuff” they legitimately receive, absent planning in advance. His sons received these items as “gifts” upon his death and are free to maintain or dispose of them as they see fit. It’s now their “stuff.” What “Neil” might have wanted, doesn’t matter now. That time and opportunity has passed.
Ultimately, none of this really matters. His stuff will decay, go the way that we and all of our prized possessions will, the disintegration of all physical things.
6
This article needs to be read in conjunction with another recent NYT article about the wife of one of the Armstrong’s son, who’s a lawyer, shaking down a hospital for malpractice that allegedly lead to Neil’s death.
Yep, they’re cashing in but then who cares. If some people want to fork out money for Neil’s teddy bear, it’s their business, isn’t it?
Doesn’t change anything about the fantastic adventure of the space race.
3
Money is numbers and numbers never end. If it takes money to be happy, your search for happiness will never end -Buddha
Kudos to Mrs Armstrong to have such high ideals and prayers for Mr Armstrong’s children .
3
If one wonders what it means to live in the age of Trump all one has to do is compare the integrity of Neil Armstrong to that of his sons. There was a time when no son would so dishonor the memory of a father but we now live in a time when such mendacity and avarice is not just common but elevated as the just rewards of moral predators.
We are so far gone that it is possible for this article to raise the question as to what Neil Armstrong would have thought about selling off the personal effects he had tried to keep private all of his life. We all know what he would have thought and we know that his sons know as well. That is why these auctions are dishonorable and they will be a curse that the sons families will have to endure for generations. Neil Armstrong is a product of the ages and his memory will live forever in the history of mankind. Future generations will track down as much information about him as they can and they will all encounter the unseemly actions of his sons and marvel at the contrast between the great man and those who came after. And they will understand a little more about what it takes to face the unknown like Armstrong and his fellow astronauts did in this brief moment of historical time.
4
Would a better-written will by Armstrong have prevented much of this? Or is his sons' behavior beyond his then imagination?
5
Is there a real point to these stories?
Unless you’re opining on his parenting skills, what do things that his sons did after his death have to do with Neil Armstrong?
It appears to me that, sometimes, all your reporting does is to drag someone’s name through the mud. That’s just not nice.
13
@Whatever
You say, "...drag someone's name through the mud."
Who's name? Mark and Rick Armstrong, or Neil Armstrong?
If you mean Neil Armstrong, you have a lot of explaining to do. I see no mud in this article about Neil Armstrong. Indeed, after reading this article, my respect and admiration has increased for him and I have a new found respect and admiration for his second wife, Carol Armstrong.
If you mean Mark and Rick Armstrong, didn't they make the decision to cash in on their father 's accomplishments themselves? Did someone have a gun to their heads when they auctioned off the American Flag that went to the moon and back? I think it is very newsworthy to know their character and their choices and to tell the world as well..
2
Love of money is the root of all evil. This applies to both people who use the halo effect of their actual achievements - e.g. astronauts who accept board directorships offered purely to reap advantage from their names - and descendants who unconvincingly protest that their money-grubbing will benefit good causes. That "everybody's doing it" - meaning in this realm politicians, 15-minutes-of-fame hangers-on, relatives, "friends", "sources", et al - has never been justification for anything.
6
I do wonder whether any of this was done to settle estate taxes. And as to Mark's pledge -- "Let’s see what positive things we can do with the proceeds" -- that's a follow-up story the NYT should publish, once the dust settles. My gut feeling is the vast majority of this money will be kept for personal use by his sons.
13
Sad, I know that there is a lot of material and it would appear if Armstrong wanted it sold upon his death he would have said so. Yes, it may have belonged to the family and I say may have since I think a court did rule that some items from the astronauts belonged to them, but to me the items listed were not only paid for by the taxpayers, but should be in a museum for all to see. They are part of the greatest event in human history the landing on the moon. Lets face facts the kids wanted to cash out along with his first wife. From what I know of Armstrong history he did become somewhat of a recluse not wanting all the attention that the landing resulted in. His second wife appears to be the descent one not wanting any of the money. Yes, I had a father who there was medical malpractice when he died, but I thought it was disgusting how the kids blackmailed the hosp. into a quick settlement. That was what it was using the fathers death to get a big payout. Although as someone pointed out I wonder whether they have violated the terms of the agreement. The sons made money from the recent movie to me it seems Neil was a quiet man who taught after the moon landing and tried to avoid the limelight and he never thought to sell his items while he was alive. I will be curious to see the statement from this so called charity that has been created and how much of the money goes into it. The items like paintings go into a rich person collection never to be seen again. Jim Trautman
4
As a result of this type of greed and selfishness, NASA changed the rules for what could be brought into space and back from it as personal property. Neil got it right. He should have ran for president and taught his successors a thing or two about patriotism and integrity. His sons will get their rewards when they meet up with their father again. Ouch!!!
4
"Naked I entered this world and naked I leave it."
Whatever we acquire, prize, honor, hoarde, etc. is someday going to be removed from our cold, dead fingers and put in someone else's hands who may or may not honor our vision -- and that may be good or bad. Such is life.
7
We live in an extremely CAPITALISTIC society where MONEY is EVERYTHING...!
What else to say...?!
3
It's obvious from this article that Neil's sons are not half the men their father was. This is a pure money grab -- both brothers retired in their early 50s?
11
The family of Martin Luther King, the family of Neil Armstrong, whose is next?
2
Armstrong’s two sons, daughter-in-law and siblings disgraced the very high ethical and moral guidelines Neil Armstrong lived by as a world and national hero. Bravo to his wife for loving and respecting him in that very way.
His space achievements and those of our nation were soiled by a repulsive group of greedy relatives hungry for the dollars he refused to collect and leave them as an inheritance.
I felt very sad reading this article while still remembering the exhilaration of his triumph as a boy in NYC.
6
If I knew my Father despised the act of trading on his name, the thought that his signature was used for profit, how could I sell his name without dishonoring his legacy?Without revealing my own lack of character, that I never understood him, or the gratitude and affection he obviously held for the country that afforded him opportunities that remain the stuff of dreams?
14
I've seen a lot of families go through this 'fighting' over assets after a parent passes on. Money brings out the worst in humanity. Love brings out the best.
4
This is really sad. I can understand selling a few items if you've fallen on hard times, but this appears to be a cash grab and complete contrary to Mr. Armstrong's views on celebrity. Most of these items related to NASA and the moon should have been donated to Purdue Archives when they could be kept for scholars.
7
Self-serving rationalization is when the sons of a man who embodied having "the right stuff" say, as they are selling their father's most personal possessions, that they don't know what he would want them to do with these things.
Self-serving rationalization is also when these son's say they're auctioning off their father's possessions to private collectors because donating the items to museums doesn't guarantee they will be displayed to the public.
How sad it is that Neil Armstrong's own sons view his legacy as an opportunity for profit, unlike those of us, worldwide, who will never forget the awe we felt as we witnessed him step onto another world.
4
So they're going to start a non-profit with the proceeds of the sale. And, I would guess, pay themselves handsome salaries for being part of the staff or board, and/or perks like flying around to advertise this non-profit. Wendy will probably get fees for legal work. Give us a break. Just say, It's ours, we can sell it, we'd like the money. Some of us would respect this more.
11
“I seriously doubt Neil would approve of selling off his artifacts and memorabilia,” said James R. Hansen, his biographer. “He never did any of that in his lifetime.”
Your speculation about what the Astronaut might have wanted is just not relevant to his heirs’ decision to seek financial security for their families through the sale of their own inherited personal property.
If Armstrong wanted this stuff to remain in the public domain he was sophisticated enough to make those arrangements but did not.
4
I cannot blame them for trying to make some money and build a place for their families in the world. Sad that even our noblest endeavours however always turn to profit.
1
What's happening to our world? As an American I feel a deep sense of shame over his sons. Would Dad approve? NO! He was the exact opposite of both of you.
My father never walked on the moon. He wasn't born with courage or the will to touch the stars. He is a simple, kind, golden heart rare humble human being. At 94 he just sent me the love letters he wrote to my mother. He knew who would cherish them the most.
Even if he had been famous for anything other than being my dear father I would never sell, not for any money in this world, anything that he owned or treasured himself.
If my father had been Neil Amstrong than nothing would've ever been sold. Not EVER. At most it would be shared within the family with the understanding that it couldn't be sold.
Are we so improvished that nearly everything in a person's life is reduced to $$$$$$? Is there absolutely nothing sacred at all?
5
I've seen many families disintegrate after one or both parents pass and the will is read... All the years of family love, support, birthdays, graduations, vacations and reunions- a lifetime of joyous memories trashed when the will is read. Brothers and sisters ravage each other- uncles, aunts, cousins and in-laws start coming out of the woodwork.. everyone looking for their share.
4
People who do not have a famous or even slightly famous parent (my case) should think twice before discounting the difficulty of dealing with the parent’s archive.
No institution wants ALL the stuff, and then what do you do? Should they be burdened with keeping it at their house? Or what, exactly?
Regardless of what Armstrong felt, I don’t see the harm in letting people buy his old Popular Mechanics. Don’t forget, they, as taxpayers, paid to put him on the moon. Even if Armstrong specifically forbade this in his will, I’d return to my first point. What exactly are they supposed to do with this stuff?
You also shouldn’t discount the basic difficulty of having a super-celebrity dad. I’m willing to wait and see what they do with the dough.
4
This story seems unfair to the Armstrong family. They did not choose the limelight, and certainly nobody can fault them for wanting to monetize or not monetize that which comes with the limelight. If they disagree amongst themselves, it is their concern, not ours. The Times ought not partake in publicizing their private controversies. To do so is voyeurism, plain and simple.
10
@Matthew Rips,
My thoughts exactly.
I recently lost a close family member; the act of going thru her stuff was so humiliating to her memory and to the privacy we both valued.
1
Let stop this hand-wringing projection of what humanity wants on behalf of an ICON. Mr. Armstrong is dead. He lived his life. Let his heirs live theirs.
If Neil had wanted to control his legacy beyond his "living" life - He would've, could've and should've done so.
Oh wait- he did.
7
As an antiques collector, I know very well that some items from virtually all estates of value end up on the market. Unless there is evidence of fraud, it seems the height of arrogance to jump into a family quarrel and cast aspersions on the motives of grieving family members.
I'm not really getting the barber anecdote. Is Neil Armstrong's reaction to unauthorized marketing of his body parts being used to infer his feelings about his own children's role in his legacy? If he didn't want his children to have a role, he would have left them out of the will.
Re: donations to museums. As noted, museums have limited display and storage space. They are also known on occasion to "de-accession," so items are not actually preserved in perpetuity. Often better to have buyers who will really cherish these items.
Armstrong's sons say they will do good things with the auction proceeds, which is admirable, but they shouldn't have to defend themselves. They should be able to donate, or spend or save for their families as they like,
8
Very harsh commentary for the Armstrong children. First, the hospital was guilty of gross malpractice. Sometimes the only way to get an institution to change their ways is with a law suit. I would bet that this hospital no longer does this type of surgery or at least has instituted better medical practices. Second let’s face it, life is expensive and money is important and can be liberating. We all know that. Just because the family auctioned off his memorabilia doesn’t mean that a museum could not have bid on items important to their collections. I don’t blame them at all for wanting to capitalize on their Dad’s fame. You never know what life throws at you or your heirs and maybe this auction insulates the family from hardships down the road. At the least the grandchildren won’t be buried under a mountain of college debt. Or they will have the privilege to be a stay at home Mom or Dad or to be home with a sick relative. Readers should be less judgmental.
5
If in his rookie year, Mickey Mantle had received 100 of his own bubble gum cards, would you condemn his heirs for selling them today?
1
the fact that mr armstrong declined to sell memorabilia and capitalize on his achievements and fame does not preclude his heirs from selling the memorabilia they inherited. the fact that the his adult children and his widow did not agree on filing a medical malpractice claim is a situation that is played out across the nation many, many times. i work in health care and call tell you that there are many, many times that an extended family disagrees on matters such as pursuing malpractice claims and disconnecting a loved one form life support.
what is really disturbing is that this article is presented to tarnish the accomplishments of mr armstrong, the apollo 11 crew and NASA. their accomplishment will continue to inspire the world and live long after every one forgets this silly article. RIP neil armstrong, you are an inspiration.
Legacies die, but a hero always lives.
1
The two sons of this noble man are carpetbaggers. Shame on them! But his new family from the second marriage has lived up to the spirit of the great man. Sadly, blood and genes are not transmitters of morals and values.
4
The grandchildren's attorney argued that they had “lost their universally beloved and revered grandfather, who could magically open any door, innocently pave ways into college admissions..."
Those grandchildren will have to learn how to get into college on their own merit now--just as their grandfather did.
21
Splitting the profits from an auction of the items belonging to their dad might be a way to divide the estate evenly and avoid disagreements over it. The Kennedy children held an auction of items belonging g to their mother.
2
Neil Armstrong must have guessed the fate of all the memorabilia that he was going to leave behind. He decided to respect the choice of his heirs by not leaving a will.
Details in this article shaming the Armstrong family is more despicable than the conduct of that family.
@AB Govindaraj. How do you know he didn’t leave a will?
2
@AB Govindaraj Neil Armstrong did in fact leave a will. You can find it on Hamilton County Probate Court website.
A fascinating article which raises questions about the motives and actions of many of the parties.
My late father was an attorney and he handled his share of estates. He recalled families going to war over the most mundane objects. A chair or a piece of china. In a way, the Armstrong family has gone through similar conflicts.
My feelings about the sons’ actions are mixed. Donating items from his service to the nation to an accredited museum would ensure they will be cared for and available for research. The teddy bear, on the other hand, would probably not interest said museum. Give that to a grandchild. With that said, they have made some donations and what remains is theirs to do as they see fit. Outsiders are free to express their opinions.
The lawsuit against the hospital is a different matter. That action was about holding the hospital accountable and Neil Armstrong’s friendship with the cardiologist had nothing to do with it. Had it been my father, who never set foot on the moon, I would have done the same thing.
Finally, I believe it’s disingenuous to say Neil Armstrong never cashed in on his notoriety. He gave paid speeches and sat on corporate boards. I don’t fault him for that, but would those opportunities have been presented to him if he had not traveled to the moon? He didn’t do TV commercials for Tang but he cashed in in other ways. Still, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were heroes to me when I was nine and they remain so in my eyes.
5
@CEH, I don't disagree but to characterize the speaking engagements and corporate board work as "cashing in on his notoriety" is a little overstated. Mr. Armstrong was uniquely qualified as an engineer/pilot with extensive experience in the early years of the space program after his military service and experimental research test pilot duty followed by years of teaching aerospace engineering and he had a family to take care of. It's easy to find CEOs with far lesser credentials making far more money than Neil Armstrong ever did.
6
Sounds to me like the apples fell pretty far from the tree. It's always sad to see "love" translated into "opportunity," and I commend Carol Amstrong for her dignity and her courage in protecting her husband's name by declining to share in its marketability.
106
@Scarlett
I believe the article notes that Armstrong made millions himself from speeches, etc. Maybe the apples did not fall so far away? I have no idea. Of course the real winners always were and always will be the NASA contractors.
2
I’m shocked that the sons have divulged a confidential settlement from the hospital. They may be violating the terms of the settlement. If so, they may have to give the $6M back. What’s sad is that you or I would get $0 since our 80 year olds have little economic value compared to Neil Armstrong.
17
@Summer Smith
Any "normal" hospital would have tied that case in litigation knots for years- or successfully defended the hospital's practice.
Big payouts for malpractice are extremely rare- unless you are perhaps Neil Armstrong "American Hero"
"One step back for ordinary man - One giant leap for the Armstrong family"
15
@Summer Smith
Why would you think "you or I would get $0" if there was a clear malpractice case?
@Summer Smith. They didn’t, as the linked article explain it was leaked anonymously. And that article did say they had a non-disclosure agreement.
2
I love history and its artifacts and we all seem to appreciate mementos. But we come in to this life with nothing and will leave with nothing. Our 'stuff' is mirage.
25
Well said! Also, we come alone and leave alone. Most relationships are superficial, even sham!
@farhorizons
Agree. The Roy Rogers Museum in Branson closed. The fans from yesteryear got too old to go there and see posters of Roy and Dale and Trigger and Buttermilk.
I don't blame the sons of Neil for cashing in.
1
@farhorizons
Sadly, perhaps we are the mirage as well.
Another economic reality: As the 10/25/50 year milestones pass and "that" generation dies off, the market diminishes dramatically.
This article, our discussion here, may be a footnote in history; however, Armstrong's words and actions plus those of the massive NASA team he chose to honor, will endure.
14
Consider all the people that are millionaires only because they inherited money or a business. Should they all give the money to a charity? It would be nice if it happened but it won’t.
These items belong to the family to do with what they wish.
11
Actually, yes, they should give it all to charity. In fact there should be an inheritance tax that takes almost all of every rich persons estate and puts it back into the public treasury where it belongs. Every generation should start out the same and for centuries we had such a democratizing law. But it was taken away at the same time that our democracy was destroyed. Now the rich rule forever as they pass their ill gotten gains down through the generations forever.
1
Why, exactly? And who decides what “rich” is? What if I make $100k a year but give most of it to charity? Am I still rich? Or do I have to make a million a year? My father worked his way from a shack with a privy in Appalachia to a comfortable life. He’s 87; wanna take his money away too? I agree, people like Bill Gates and his ilk should pay more, but I see this as more of a corporate issue. I can guarantee that due to legal loopholes, US companies pay far less than their fair share. Plus, corporations generate far more money per year than most millionaires. Put the onus where it belongs, not on working people.
In researching the family settlement in the threatened malpractice action for an article i wrote for MedPage Today , I reviewed the documents available to the public on the probate court's electronic website. Interestingly, Armstrong's will had a major revision via a codicil in October 2011. It appears that most of the memorabilia were swept into a trust at his death. But the codicil appears to leave intact some language requesting his surviving spouse contribute some of the materials to "one or more Charitable Organizations..." What is unclear is how his extremely valuable memorabilia were divided up. At the time of the initial filing of the Inventory and Appraisal with the court on 17 May 2013, the "tangible personal property" was valued at "$0.00." In his initial will in 2004, Armstrong requested his "books, papers, and awards" be maintained together as a single collection." Only the family can clarify how that wish became modified.
6
@Brant Mittler, MD JD
Perhaps the prices gained at the auctions help establish a more accurate value of the property? The monetary value of anything is what people are willing to pay for it.
2
While Neil Armstrong did not wish to profit from his fame, its interesting that he himself did not donate these items himself. Perhaps he didn't get around to it.
Its pretty clear that he might well disapprove of what his sons are doing, however. After all, he forced the barber who tried to sell his hair to donate the profits.
The sons probably think this is their due, but money does seem to be the goal, and not legacy.
10
Gee, back when it happened I had fallen asleep and missed it all. Never thought about it much after that. Always thought spending all that money trying to go to that moon should, instead, be used to fix bridges and roads, invest in cancer research and provide homes and shelter for poor people and veterans. Boring stuff, thst is only my opinion.
4
If it wasn’t spent on the moon it would have been spent on the Vietnam War. I think the moon was a far better choice. But then again, I wasn’t asleep.
2
@John Taylor, let’s turn all the people who fill potholes into heroes instead and I’ll gladly pay $100 for one of their childhood comic books, far less than the money I won’t have to spend then on new tires all the time. After 50 years I’m still unconvinced as well by, “because we can.”
1
@John Taylor It's not an either/or proposition, and much of the technology of the modern world was developed by the moon missions/space programs in knowledge of the universe and has generated profits and taxes used for infrastructure. Not a simple arithmetic to do.
1
Maybe it’s somewhat unseemly, but it’s the family’s right to do whatever they want with the items and people can buy or not buy them as they choose. Having read the Times piece on Mr. Armstrong’s death, it’s clear to me the medical facility was negligent as deaths from type of procedure and the particular mistake specifically are very rare and that a settlement was appropriate.
9
A lesson for all of us, the only way to make sure your wishes are followed after your death is to make the arrangements before you die. Otherwise your loved ones are left guessing as to what you may have wanted, placing a burden on the family who often cannot come to agreement. It is easy to put this off until tomorrow, until tomorrow comes.
13
They know what he wanted, they just don’t care.
55
I find the purchasing of famous people’s possessions to be one of the more strange human obsessions. Honestly, why would anyone want to own Neil Armstong’s childhood teddy bear? It seems so juvenile to me, like a person is perpetually stuck in the fifth grade show and tell mindset. Clearly, Mr. Armstrong’s children have every right to do whatever they want with his possessions, but I wonder who is buying this stuff. Humans are an odd bunch.
21
Always the critics. The family and the individual rules and no one else. Personally, I love critics. I must be doing what I think is right. So are the Armstrongs’.
3
A couple of enjoyable hit pieces. Thank you.
1
Would my grandpa approve?
Literally every time I ever saw my grandpa my entire life he would end up talking about the Depression and his least favorite creature on earth - bankers.
"Never trust a bank! They stole our homes during the Depression and they will do it again! If you can't pay cash, you can't afford it!"
If grandpa had left me $10,000 should I have buried it in the bank yard because that was his philosophy and that he would have disapproved if I put it into my credit union account?
Worse yet. What if grandma had willed me her stuff? I would literally be buried in every Christmas ornament that ever adorned her trees, every piece of wrapping paper and bow from the presents, and every card ever sent to her. She had an attic, a basement, and two barns full of memorabilia. I have a small apartment and I don't put up a tree for the holidays. My brother converted to Judaism. Are we supposed to schlep these ornaments around the country throughout our life because grandma would not approve if we just put them out on the curb with a free sign? Don't even get me started on Easter. She had a chicken farm and hollowed out what seemed like a thousand eggs, then dyed them every year for her Easter tree.
If you don't want people doing something that you would not approve of after your passing then put it in your will that you want everything put on a funeral barge and pushed off-shore while burning.
18
That's one giant step for greed. Who would pay $200 for a copy of Sports Illustrated that Neil Armstrong may have read as a kid?
Just wait until people like Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan die. The monetization of junk by their kids will be something to see. Dylan has cashed in on his name but Springsteen is probably waiting for a higher price. Everyone has a price and even Neil Armstrong did commercials for Chrysler.
2
Were ANY of the objects paid for by the US government ?
The note below "Should some of those items have been the property of NASA, such as a flag that flew on Apollo 11?" suggests they were. Why are they allowed to sell government property ?
13
@M Caplow As I recall, each astronaut was permitted to bring some personal items on the craft.
I live in a retirement community, where everyone who moves in has to *downsize* which means throwing away a lot of things, including personal memorabilia.
If NASA museums already have the important things, then it seems that selling them and using the proceeds for something worthwhile (rather than personal gain) is reasonable.
One question I might ask is what happened to the $6 million settlement for a suit against the hospital in which he died?? Did they keep the money or use it to start the foundation they are now proposing?
23
Not mentioned in this story is that a host of museums in the country starting with the National Air and Space Museum had prior access to all of the items in the Armstrong Collection and passed on most of them. The balance of the less historically relevant items ended up in these auctions. The most historic and compelling of Armstrong's collection were selected by museums and entities such as Purdue for preservation. Selling the rest of the historically less relevant material allows the legions of Neil's admirers to keep a tangible piece of his life for themselves and their ancestors. Armstrong may not have been accessible in life to most people, but his memory will live on in these artifacts in hundreds of hearts and homes.
Additionally, some good will likely come from the auction proceeds; something that would not have happened had the material all ended up in a landfill.
Would Neil have approved? Not likely, but the family was in a difficult position and is trying to salvage something positive from a tragically unnecessary situation.
16
The museums have no money and could not afford to buy the items even if they wanted to. Maybe Trump should have bought them and displayed them in the Trump museum that I am sure is going to be built with the ax dollars that he never had to pay.
1
@Bobotheclown The best items were donated by the Armstrong family to NASM and other museums of repute. They were not sold to them.
1
Children of "great men" often have a difficult time. Neil Armstrong no doubt was absent from home for a lot of those older children's childhood. They seem to be doing better than many. What they do with their inheritance is up to them.
19
Squabbles over inheritances happen in almost every family. It was bound to happen in Neil Armstrong's family, particularly since he must not have made any directives about how he wanted his assets handled. That the children sold everything off to make money is not so bad as this article makes it sound. But the handling of the malpractice case is pretty bad because if there was indeed malpractice involved it should have been made public record. If a hospital screws up resulting in someones death because of gross negligence, and this is borne out by investigation, this needs to be made public so other patients can be better informed and decide how to proceed with their own care.
13
Trump 2017 tax reform bill may also have influenced the heir's decision to auction the properties they inherited. Had the estate become taxable say at 5 million, or 2.2 million, there is no question that some of the "personal" effects would have been donated outright to offset the estate tax burden.
5
@Elizabeth There was a reference in the article to a trust. Families and individuals with substantial assets — such as Neil Armstrong— did careful estate planning to avoid entirely or lessen the “estate tax burden,” and that appears to have been the case here. I dint believe Trump plYed stile in any decisions here.
@Elizabeth There was a reference in the article to a trust. Families and individuals with substantial assets — such as Neil Armstrong— did careful estate planning to avoid entirely or lessen the “estate tax burden,” and that appears to have been the case here. I don’t believe Trump played a role in any decisions here.
2
@Awestruck
The estate tax exclusion was 5.1 million in 2012, and the estate tax exclusion is 11.18 in 2018 when their mother passed. Mr. Armstrong was a wealthy person, and one would assume that much of the estate tax credit would be used to exclude the estate tax on his other assets as his personal effects were "valued" at zero.( according to another reader). If these items were valued at zero, the children would have to pay capital gains tax on all sales unless the first wife also have some claim and a step up in basis resulted after her passing, and the Armstrong children are able to utilize the credit to shield some of that gains.
1
Neil Armstrong realized that his path to the landing on the moon was built upon shoulders of thousands of scientists, engineers, and astronauts, many of who gave their lives so that Apollo 11/could land safely on the moon and bring back astronauts back to earth safely. He was aware of the sacrifices of the likes of John Grissom who died in the crash of Apollo 1, and the team of Apollo 10 that did the dry run, bar landing, for Apollo 11.
Unfortunately, his $ons don't care of what his father would say about cashing in.
103
@Independent Citizen: Apollo 1 burned during a launch testing exercise on the ground at KSC. All three astronauts, Virgil Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee perished in the fire.
23
@Independent Citizen Respectfully, it was a fire not a "crash" in the command module of Apollo 1 that killed all three astronauts: Roger Chaffee, Virgil Gus Grissom, and Ed White. However, your words ring very true.
14
@Independent Citizen
Do you personally know Neil? Do you really know his wishes for his sons and their families? Both his sons may have talked in great depth with their father about what to do with items in the future. I am sure their father is proud of them and their own accomplishments and would want them to have anything and everything for their future and their children's future.
You obviously don't know parents and what they would want for their children. My parents would have had me sell ANYTHING if it made my life and my children's life better.
4
“Museums can choose to store items out of sight or unilaterally decide to sell them,”
The idea that any museum so fortunate to have Armstrong artifacts would sell them is laughable. Having such artifacts on exhibit would ensure increased visitation, the ultimate goal for many museums. Just having such artifacts would greatly enhance the prestige of the museum itself leading (one hopes!) to further donations to its collections and more financial support overall.
There are many standards for an accredited museum (pretty sure such important artifacts would not end up at a roadside attractions type place) to meet before it can sell off any part of its collection. Transfer to another accredited institution that has demonstrated the means to properly care for collections is ethically the first step considered.
Accredited museum are also ethically bound to proper archival storage for those collection items not currently on exhibit. This means certain range of temperature and humidity, clean hazard free as possible storage rooms, cabinets, boxes, acid-free tissue, etc. Only the richest, most committed private collectors can do the same.
Selling those artifacts is the privilege of the Armstrong heirs but denigrating museums to bolster their reasons for doing so is not.
94
Yes. Ignorance or lame rationalization on their part.
2
even if Elon Musk had been Neil's son he never could have measured up - nobody can - especially the sons
5
This is an interesting article which demonstrates a range of activities that, in a way, tell the story of America to-day. Judgments, if any, of the principals in this story probably can inform greatly those making judgment. The question would seem to become, What is it that yields real wealth? Or, in order words, What is the truth of one’s life? Money, therefore, may be merely instrumental for one’s coming to realization of one’s self, though (money) not without use for the good.
2
Ah, but the moon, the moon dear reader still belongs to all of us!
But I’m left wondering if Christopher Columbus’ sons – Diego and Ferdinand – sold off bits and pieces of the Santa Maria and some of the gold and spices from their father’s original trip. I understand the brothers’ auction of the highest honor of the Spanish Royal Court given to their father – “The Grand Parchment Admiral of the Ocean Sea” – left them amongst the wealthiest in Seville for life!
7
It would appear that greed overcame grief.
62
How so? It is not “greedy” to sell your own property. Is the jealousy of the have-nots really so great as these comments reflect?
2
A sad story, indeed. But it’s perhaps made infinitely sadder by its public display in the New York Times for the world to use as a judgmental soccer ball. This is really none of our darn business!
13
I see Ken's point. If Neil Armstrong didn't want profits to be made on his property after his death, he could have said so in a will (though I understand the circumstances may not warned him of his fate). But in lieu of this, we are left with the all-too-often struggle of families after the descendent is gone. It is often ugly and sad. And while it is easy to paint a picture that leads one side to appear favorable, many times the situation is complex, and privacy should still have weight in private affairs even in the 21st century. And while some may find the publication of this situation newsworthy and interesting, I'm not sure that a public airing of this situation really helps resolve a sad family dispute.
Perhaps at best this story is a warning to all of us about planning for the inevitable to try not to let things like this happen to those we care about after our time is done.
5
@Ken Nyt
Could not disagree more. When his $on$ went full tilt, auctioning all but the man's underwear, THEY opened the door for a "public display.". Full stop.
Similar story of Martin Luther King's memorabilia. Legacy vs. lucer.
15
While Armstrong’s first family were children he was gone often, preparing to go to the moon and all the hoopla after. The children sacrificed a lot and now they are selling it all off - perhaps this is their payment for all that they gave. Don’t be so quick to think badly of them- we all have our abandonment issues
90
So what’s the standard? Thousands of American children, military families like Armstrongs’, family of NASA engineers, etc., put up with with absences and made sacrifices. That’s not a reason to profit handsomely from an important and dignified career.
22
Yeah, maybe we think he wasn't there. But do we really know? Here we are arguing over whether Mr. Armstrong's personal items should be sold by his sons. We do not know what debts he left behind? What does the "Will" and "Trust" state? Who are we to judge less not we be judged?
5
Don’t be so quick to forgive either. A busy father is no excuse for sons to have no honor.
17
Given his character, I believe that Neil Armstrong would be horrified by this coverage of what is a private family matter, which detracts from focus on the Apollo mission. He and the other Apollo astronauts exhibited a type of professionalism and quiet bravery, too often lacking today, that resulted in extraordinary accomplishments and pride for our nation. That is the real story.
35
There is little left of the America that the astronauts represented. We are all Trumpists now.
1
It can be very difficult being the son of a famous man. How can you best walking on the moon. Ultimately you can be left as a mere reflection of greatness and a footnote in your fumbling for attention. Money is no substitute for emptiness and character is not hereditary but something earned.
38
As the sons will soon learn when all this money grubbing turns the world against them
My one question: when the pacing wires were removed from Mr. Armstrong’s heart post-op, the article says he bled out because there was no cardiac surgeon present. This doesn’t make sense, because it’s the CARDIAC SURGEON who removes the pacing wires. So where was the cardiac surgeon? Maybe there was a time delay between the time of the removal and the time of the bleed. But what podunk town was this hospital in, that there was no cardiac surgeon on call, if they were performing cardiac surgery? $6
Million is not much of a settlement for such an egregious error.
13
@Jet Phillips. It is not necessarily the surgeon who removes the temporary pacer wires, as was the case with Armstrong. A nurse or mid level may also remove them. Please read the accompanying article that asks questions of other cardiac surgeons re: Armstrong’s case.
6
What is mind boggling is that at the time of his death Neil Armstrong lived in Indian Hill, the wealthiest suburb and on the northeast side of Cincinnati. There were 3 good sized hospitals with sophisticated and highly regarded cardiac practices (Jewish, Christ and University of Cincinnati Medical Center) within 5 to 20 minutes of his home. Why he was taken all the way across town to the Northwest, to a satellite hospital of the Mercy system remains the mystery of this entire sad scenario.
5
Sometimes no amount of money is enough. Seems that way for these Armstrong folks.
Remember, Carol, his wife, got nothing nor wanted nothing. Maybe that’s why he married her. And maybe that’s what Neil Armstrong stood for, too.
I wish I had never read all this stuff. Souring of an American legacy.
41
@MIMA - I agree it's a depressing story. Neil Armstrong's legacy is intact. He did nothing to detract from it. It's his kids' reputations and legacies that have been sullied...by their own actions. No matter what they do in life, there will always be this matter popping up in the background.
1
These sons have no idea about what they are destroying and how this kind of immorality will come back at them. But they will learn.
1
I am not sure that Mr. Armstrong would approve of NYT spending time on disagreements between his immidiate family.
Also has anyone considered how much junk is left over from a life like Armstrong’s? What would you have the children do? Stick it in a storage facility and pay for it? As for donations I guess they could have given a little bit to lots of places to avoid it just ending up in storage somewhere else, but then they would have had to vet all those people.
The best would have been to just quietly throw it out. Armstrong was the tip of a very long spear. Honor the accomplishments by looking again at the pictures from the moon. A mind boggling achievement that no earthly possession could capture.
10
@John G. Or they could have donated the “ junk” ( if it was junk, they wouldn’t expect to cash in on it, surely) to a museum which would, in advance, agree to treat it appropriately, either store properly, or display. I think what people find so bothersome in this story is that Armstrong seemed to embody traditional American values, including a humble demeanor( Yes, at one time humbleness not braggadocio was admired). His unwillingness to cash in on his legacy is a lesson for all of us, especially in this era of reality tv “ stars”, and con artists elevated to positions of power.
Junk? Really?
I don’t think the historic items of a historic figure are junk ready for the trash bin.
1
It might have been more in keeping with their father’s legacy to donate (or sell) the objects and memorabilia to the Smithsonian. We’ve devolved into a society of opportunistic me, me, me. Neil Armstrong left a legacy of selflessness. His children will not.
41
@Susan Josephs National Air & Space Museum had right of refusal of all the Armstrong artifacts and only took those they considered historically relevant. The story neglected to mention this.
4
On one hand, Mark looks like the kind of person who would do what he is doing. On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with it. Everyone has to pay their bills some way.
8
@Alan Wahs
Oh come on. Please don’t base your idea of what a person is like on how they look. If everyone did that, what might they conclude about you, or any of us? Would it be true? Totally shallow comment.
1
The story of the Armstrong family is every family’s story. How to honor the memory and wishes of the dead? In my own unfamous family, we’ve had generational splits on this very topic. My approach is this: someone else’s money and possessions are not mine. If someone else receives those things, how wonderful for that person, and now those things belong to that person to do as she pleases. End of story. Ruining relationships and family ties is not worth the fight.
16
@Willie
This is so familier with the unfamous too. My long deceased elderly mother , told me stories about my dad ( born 1898 ) and his fights with several siblings over loans and then forward to my generation with cousins who split permenately after fights at attornies office during deceased parents asset distribution.
I have more examples, its how we (families) behave.
The double whammy is that not only does a historic collection get separated and thrown to the wind, most of the items were bought not for their historic value, but as “investments” to be fought over and sold again one day. It’s pretty low to publicize and cash in on your father’s illustrious, heroic and public spirited career, especially one that all Americans shared and pointed to with pride.
34
Especially the teddy bear. There is a grand daughter out there somewhere who could have put that to much better use.
2
The real "artifacts" of Mr. Armstrong's life are the countless young minds that he and his actions shaped, either directly through his work as a teacher or indirectly through his example as an inquisitive explorer and as a humble human being.
28
Is there any reason to believe the various upcoming missions to Mars are not going to be financed by the likes of Instagram, Netflix and online memorabilia auctions?
Private-sector space program financing is not unlike the Olympics - a chance for corrupt private contractors to cash in while leaving the public with the debts.
Just ask the Brazilians how their big party worked out for them - how much of the Amazon do they intend to sacrifice to pay off their debts?
3
As if anyone will care who Netflix sends to Mars.
I had an opportunity to sell some Armstrong memorabilia shortly before he died. There was great interest especially in his autograph because he did not sign much. Had I known he was in poor health I would have waited.
2
I don’t know about you, but I find the behavior of the Armstrong sons quite depressing. I suppose not everyone can be as upright as Neil Armstrong.
57
They are a reflection of a greedy and selfish America !
As far as I’m concerned, and many may disagree, this is only a sign of our age, unmitigated greed. Full stop.
39
It is clear that his children will leave no legacy at all.
3
It is only 1 week since the 50th anniversary of the moon landing. Hopefully the press about Neil Armstrong will not predominately focus on the family issues- but more on the Apollo 11 mission and helping more people learn about one of history's most remarkable achievements.
25
We all have plenty of time and examples of precedent to arrange for our passing. Neil Armstrong had the means and opportunity to outline his own details with instruments and decedents to convey and interpret his wishes. They are doing that.
Liquidating an estate of magnitude is an arduous task, rare with thanks.
5
@Cee Lee. Wait, we all have plenty of time to arrange for our passing? And even if that were true, it means we would actually do it? Where in the world would you get such an idea? Please have a discussion with an estate attorney.
1
Memorabilia of this sort rarely stays in a family for more than a couple of generations. Sooner or later, some family member sees the pecuniary value rather than family history.
The shame is, this material should go to a museum, rather than private collections. Of course, museums are having a hard time of it, now that people are living their lives through their screens.
11
Several strong, negative comments on the actions by the Armstrong brothers and their selling of their father’s memorabilia.
Deaths, especially the way Mr. Armstrong died, and the subsequent distribution of assets are seldom easy or simple.
As for how their father would feel, who knows for sure; his second wife seems to have made ever effort to honor the manner her husband lived, but who knows.
I do imagine that he was away a great deal from his family and children as they grew up. That must have been hard on him, his wife and children. Maybe it is fitting as they are older to sell some things. But in the end many items are on display in museums and these items were mostly auctioned off so everyone had an opportunity to bid on them, including museums. They were the families things to sell.
Guess I’ll close with this , his death was a tragedy to his families and to the country, and I wish the best to his remaining families and to their good fortune to have lived and know him.
16
The son seems to be rationalizing his choice (with his brother) to have auctions instead of donating by saying “Museums can choose to store items out of sight or unilaterally decide to sell them” but once a private buyer wins the bid on an item, there is is probably no chance the public will have access to it. Even if a museum stores an item, an individual can request access to that item.
I understand the issue of having a deceased family members’ belongings, I hope in this case many items have been purchased by institutions which will use them to educate people about Armstrong’s life and achievements.
26
I was privileged to spend an evening with Neil Armstrong years ago and what impressed me most was his dignity and modesty. His noble legacy will survive whatever motivates his survivors. These days, nothing surprises us wherever money can be made.
326
@Doc
No military test pilot has any 'dignity nor 'modesty' nor a 'noble legacy' by nature nor nurture.
Any indication to the contrary is an affectation for the naive. There is a very thin line between confidence and arrogance.
The race to the Moon was a product of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and America.
NASA was a product of Nazi German war criminal rocket scientists.
4
So what? It's essentially an estate sale. Many of us who have inherited property from deceased family members have done the same. Neil Armstrong may or may not have wanted to see his property disposed of in this manner, but he isn't around to express his wishes and in light of that, his family absolutely should do what is in their own interest.
126
Do many of us have a family member who was the first man on the moon?
This was a historic and significant collection that should have been handled with a good deal more dignity.
96
Estate sale? He isn’t your grandpa, he is Neil Armstrong.
It seems people like Armstrong understood that his accomplishment on the moon wasn’t just for him or the US, but “for all mankind” — past, present, and future. Give the stuff to a museum. Or give the auction proceeds to an organization that contributes to public interest understanding of the sciences, thereby encouraging future accomplishments like his own.
Ask what you can do for you country, not what you can get from it.
21
@mpound the difference being that this man's estate has tremendous significance to the nation as a whole.
Perhaps the brothers could have tried selling it as a lot to a university or museum, with stipulations regarding its accessibility to the public. But they didn't. They went for maximum dollar. I think it's a shame.
17
Such things can turn ugly quickly in families rocked by divorce, a death where a will wasn’t made or the will didn’t cover some possible asset(s) as in this case. We have a friend whose grandmother equally parceled out the multi-generational family farm in an effort to "bring and keep the kids together." There has been nothing but lawsuits ever since her death. I am not in a position to judge. In many ways, its genuinely tragic what these things can do to a family.
In our own case, my partner and I have boxes of stuff from my partner’s mother, some of it generations old, and the question is, “what to do with it?” Some of this stuff is generations old and while nostalgic to go through, there is only so much space in the house, only so much space on the wall. Plus, we have items to display from our life too. Thankfully, in our case, I could care less and leave such decisions to my partner over what gets displayed. But the rest of the stuff gets stored in boxes and, while we take care to keep them safe, time deteriorates them naturally no matter how they are stored. This, even as we improved the storage situation by moving them inside the house rather than the garage, moved to plastic boxes from cardboard, foam peanuts from the old newspapers they were originally stored in. Heck, even the newspaper they used to be stored in got flattened, placed in a binder noting what it is and where it came from because it is genuinely interesting, historical. But what do you do with it?
30
i work at an archive. it sits until you toss it or donate it to an institute for safe keeping and maybe research. we have boxes to toss as we go through and take out the treasures. throwin stuff out is okay
8
Should some of those items have been the property of NASA, such as a flag that flew on Apollo 11?
116
Public money made him famous. The sale proceeds should go to the taxpayers!
9
Exactly. Or the space suits?
1
One telling line that surely Mr. Armstrong would not have approved of: attorney Bertha G. Helmick writing that his grandchildren “lost their universally beloved and revered grandfather, who could magically open any door, innocently pave ways into college admissions..." Mr. Armstrong, the epitome of integrity, would want everyone to put their own boots on the ground and not rely on gravity-defying, behind-the-scenes boosts for college or career.
222
@eo. Good point. That I was a stunningly tone-deaf statement from the attorney.
24
@eo - :) We have no idea what he would want. We are not mind readers. And the phrase does say, "innocently" rather than aggressively or purposefully.
5
If you were ever around him as some of the quoted people were, you’d learn in 5 minutes that he did not want himself to be lionized or his kids to “given” anything. Growing up, his son worked during the Summer and Fall at a vegetable farm in Lebanon, Ohio, picking pumpkins and other produce with my cousin. Neil played golf every Thursday at a small, public golf course in Lebanon with local friends. Not exactly a guy looking for handouts for himself or his kids.
10
The Times reporters have done very good work till this story about family feuding over Neil Armstrong's items being sold. Shame on the Editors for not showing more respect for the Armstrongs by limiting all this detail about settlements and hurt feelings,etc. There is a right to privacy in this country although we would like to see the President's tax records. Nobody wants to gossip about Neil Armstrong's estate and children who make difficult choices. The Times reporters think they did us a service.Boo on them.
8
@mark isenberg Sorry, I disagree, by selling the items to private collectors and suing the hospital, they opened themselves open to publicity. It goes with the territory.
58
Sadly, I know from much experience, this is exactly what families do. And it has nothing to do with value.
7
@mark isenberg You make an excellent point and an interesting observation. But Armstrong was a public figure rightfully considered an American hero. One who became one of the most famous individuals of all time as a result of billions of U.S. taxpayer's money I might add. The story of what happened to his personal belongings, and how his family chooses to deal with the complex question of what to do with it all in light of his legacy, is a fascinating one.
Right or wrong, the moment Armstrong stepped on the surface of the moon and said those famous words, any hope of what average folks would consider a right to privacy was lost forever. The Times was 100% correct to research, write and publish this story - even if some of the truths it reveals are a bit uncomfortable. 1st Amendment aside, it was a good read. The barber selling clips of Armstrong's hair and selling it for three grand? Priceless, only in America.
3
"Rick, 62, a onetime animal trainer who has a software consulting business". From animal training to software! That about sums it up. If nothing else this shows how very important it is to document instructions in one's Will and/or Trust. From what I've read, his sons' actions do not reflect who Neil Armstrong was.
48
@WF. Though I find Armstrong’s sons actions sad, I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been to grow up as the child of Neil Armstrong. What career do you choose when he was your father? How can your career successes ever measure up? Comparisons would always be made. I certainly don’t condemn the son for working in a variety of careers. I have done so, as have many other people. I do think it’s reprehensible to cash in on the name of a man who was loathe to do so himself.
5
They could have been doctors. Instead they became animal trainers.
@WF
Please don’t judge him solely based on what his previous jobs were. Perhaps you have always had jobs that look good on a resume but that can’t “sum up” your entire character or personality, can it? Does it? Most people are more complex and shouldn’t be thought of only by the jobs they have. Please take time to consider people with more curiosity and thought.
5
Sad story about the two families and their views of Mr. Armstrong’s fame and persona being commercialized.
However, I was involved in both writing/revising the Ohio Right of Publicity law in 1998 and testifying before the panel in the House that originated it. The story going around the statehouse at the time was that the bill was being pushed by the law firm representing Mr. Armstrong, who was afraid that his name and likeness would be put on mugs, t-shirts and other similar items in honor of the 40th anniversary of the moon landing in 1999.
27
These are the son's items and they are free to do what they want with them. They've obviously donated some to museums and intend to do good work with some of the money made from the auctions. Perhaps they should set up a fund in Neil Armstrong's name to fight climate change. As fort the lawsuit, it sound like the hospital we responsible in that they had no cardiac surgeon standing by and his children and grandchildren were deprived of years of with this man, in addition to having to watch as he lay brain dead for 11 days and then make the heart wrenching decision to pull him off life support. His second family, aside from the wife, does not have the same claim. The hospital obviously reviewed the case and agreed. They do have to make peace with their conscience about what their father would have wanted. By doing good with the money, they can do that. They can't be expected to haul around a hoard of checks and receipts for the rest of their lives, but I hope that they are giving their children and grandchildren some of the memorabilia.
76
Neil Armstrong's opinion on cashing in on his fame while he was alive is apparent. His wife took the high road by not participating in the auctions and sales.
Unfortunately, his sons evidently have a different mindset and plan. They know exactly what their dad would've wanted, they're just not following through with his wishes.
Selling off during the 50 year anniversary sends a spotlight on motive.
As my father, an attorney, used to say, figure out the motive, there's only three- money, love or power.
172
Tawdry. Unfortunately many American's define themselves by how much money they can make rather than how to live a noble life.
190
I suspect that Mr. Armstrong would be horrified by his children’s actions. A death frequently brings out the worst in families. This certainly seems to be the case.
93
Sounds like Mark and Rick Armstrong are making a lot of money off of actions their dad would probably not approve of, based on the way he lived his life. They sued his doctor, a friend, and recovered $6 million by threatening to bad publicity for the hospital, and then started auctioning his stuff off piece by piece, for millions more.
Auctioning off his teddy bear? What's next--his bedroom slippers? Towels he used to dry his hands? Old socks (in which Neil had taken several "Giant Steps" in his living room)?
I'd suggest the Times check back in a couple of years to verify all the "good work" their purported environmental charity is doing with the money the auctions generated. I hope I am wrong, but I fear we will find they have mostly taken One Giant Step for Rick and Mark's Bank Accounts.
345
my thoughts exactly
8
They are modeling their non profit after the Trump Foundation.
10
@Jack Sonville The accomplishments of Armstrong and the other astronauts and participants in America's space program do, in a way, belong to all mankind, yet there's no shortage of resulting papers and artifacts and memorabilia in many museums. The items being auctioned, most of them ephemera, did once belong to Armstrong, but he never made plans for them, so they now belong to his eldest sons and are theirs to dispose of as they see fit. Readers may assume they know what Neil would have wanted, but unless he expressly forbid selling the things he left to his family, there's no reason to expect them to hang on to every bit of it. The family also had a perfect right to seek damages in a medical malpractice suit for a hospital error that prematurely robbed them of a father, a brother, and a grandfather. The sons have stated that they will use the auction proceeds in positive, civic-minded ways, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt unless they break their word. Uber-patriots and space fanatics need to stop acting as if their plaster saint has been defiled. Note that other family members, who are following Neil's example and not profiting from his name, have not publicly criticized the sons or their auctions. Everyone grieves and remembers and honors lost family members in their own ways; let's avoid labeling them as greedy or rushing to judgment.
4
“‘ Would Dad approve? Let’s see what positive things we can do with the proceeds,” he said.’”
I would be interested in reading sometime down the line what positive things are done in the public sphere by his sons Mark and Rick with at least some of the money made from the sale of the Armstrong space memorabilia by his sons. Please keep us informed.
47
I think they plan to invest in a Trump branded golf course. They may actually get to visit the White House where the present occupant will congratulate them on being so smart.
3
@Susanits probably irrelevant what good or bad they do with the money -- it's the sale in the first place.
There are museums that would preserve and honor these items and they would be on public view. Shame on his greedy sons.
62
@Melinda Russell museums want a pair of underwear worn by a ex astronaut? They may be valuable to a NASA fanatic but not to a museum.
4
That he considered himself the front man for the team effort that put him on the moon tells us a lot about the man.
154