|
Author
|
Topic: Spacehab sues NASA over STS-107 loss
|
spaceuk
Member Posts: 2113
From: Staffs, UK
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-06-2006 04:55 AM
  
Spacehab is suing NASA for loss of their double module and equipment aboard the tragic Columbia flight.Spacehab have received compensation from NASA upto the "limited liability" level - a few million dollars. Without full knowledge of what the contract says that exists between Spacehab Inc and NASA and though I can understand Spacehab motive for trying to recover the additional US$79M+ amount from NASA for its loss, did Spacehab not have any insurance cover for these units outside of NASA? Or is this a case where insurance cannot be bought for shuttle flights? Spacehab must have known about the limited liability clause in the contract before flight? |
trajan
Member Posts: 109
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2004
|
posted 02-06-2006 04:14 PM
Am I the only one who finds this lawsuit a bit tasteless? I know that "where there's blame, there's a claim" rules these days, but seven good people died and I find this action quite insensitive. Also, on a wider point, should companies involved in space exploration not accept that risk is part of their business? (I accept that mine is a quite naive viewpoint) |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-06-2006 05:50 PM
Corporate America feels little to nothing in regards to humanity or the loss of lives.It's driven by profit margins, not compassion. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-06-2006 07:54 PM
Playing devil's advocate... if Spacehab lost its double module during an unmanned flight, would it make any difference? If so, what is it?And yes, they recognize that risk is a part of the business... which is why they have insurance. Lloyds of London paid out when two satellites (Westar and Palapa, I believe) were essentially useless after their booster rockets misfired after release by the shuttle. |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 02-07-2006 06:28 AM
What would they have done with the modules after the flight? Make a museum display? Where there any more planned missions? I thought this was the last planned Spacehab type flight.My point is $79M or not, was it not in fact obsolete hardware even if the mission had not ended with tragic outcome? Admittedly, I might be naive here as well. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-07-2006 10:41 AM
I suspect the argument they will make (right or wrong) is that NASA's ignored the problem with the foam strikes until it proved fatal. They may use this to show negligence on NASA's part.While the Spacehab module may have been on it's last mission, it was essentially a mission that wasn't completed...in that the experiments and module weren't safely returned to Earth for analysis. While some experiments miraculously survived the breakup, most were lost and can't be reflown at this time...since Spacehab is gone. As such, they will likely try to recover their losses from the lost experiments. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-07-2006 02:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kyra:
My point is $79M or not, was it not in fact obsolete hardware even if the mission had not ended with tragic outcome?
I don't see Spacehab profiteering from the loss - they're just trying to get back what they lost, "obsolete" hardware or not. I don't think Hughes would not defer from putting in a claim had their -376 satellite been lost on STS-32R (the last of five), or the manufacturers of Spacelab if the accident instead happened on STS-90. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 02-08-2006 12:04 AM
Well Spacehab modules are listed for some upcoming ISS missions (116 and 118). So if they had not lost the double module on 107 the is the chance that it would have been used on latter ISS flights. Remember too the the Spacehab module was forced on NASA by Congress. It was a good idea and a nice module but all it was is an almost Spacelab. Spacehab was going to rent out the locker space to other companies and NASA and that would fund it. Well guess who had to be the most lockers NASA. Also maybe to get the insurance money they have to sue Nasa before the insurance company will pay up. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-21-2007 11:27 AM
Spacehab release Spacehab dismisses RDM claim with NASASPACEHAB, Incorporated, a leading provider of commercial space services, today announced that the Company has filed for a formal dismissal with prejudice of all litigation against NASA relating to losses incurred by SPACEHAB as a result of the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia accident. In January 2004 the Company initiated a formal proceeding against NASA in which the Company was seeking damages in the amount of $87.7 million for the loss of its Research Double Module (RDM) as a result of the Columbia accident. In October 2004, NASA responded to this claim with the determination that its liability was $8.2 million, including interest, and paid SPACEHAB this amount. SPACEHAB subsequently filed an appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and over the past two years, the two parties have proceeded with preparations for a court hearing planned for July 2008.
The Company also filed a tort claim in November 2004, seeking damages of $79.7 million for the loss of the RDM, to which the court granted a motion in June 2006 to stay the case until resolution of the Company's contract claim appeal.
Based upon the information available to the Company, SPACEHAB believes that the potential benefits that may be achieved by dismissing the claim against NASA, who is the Company's largest customer, outweigh any potential benefits that may be achieved by continuing the litigation of claims against the agency. The company intends to focus its limited resources on current market opportunities and new business initiatives.
"I believe that the dismissal of claims against NASA is in the best interest of the Company and am very pleased with SPACEHAB's pragmatic business decision in resolving this complex matter," said SPACEHAB President and CEO Thomas B. Pickens, III. "SPACEHAB is proud to press on in support of NASA and commercial customers worldwide."
As a result of the claim dismissal, the Company will pay Lloyd's of London, the insurer of the RDM, $0.5 million. |
advertisement