Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: FX Claim Spce can be judged 0

Author: chrisran.bma e-mail
Conversation: Re: fx-discuss: FX Claim Spce can be judged 0 ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
Date: Thu May 18, 2017 10:00 am

chrisran.bma e-mail

>So perhaps, depending on judge's view of issues above, appropriate judgement
>time might be immediately after last manned launch before 24th July 2017?

This time may have passed. Though at 28 July 2017, perhaps it could be brought
forward by 4 days. There is another launch planned for 14 July from Baikonur
Cosmodrome but that could be delayed scrapped.

Even if it carried full capacity of 3 private company employees to orbit, that
may well not be sufficient because 3 of the 5 people on ISS are planned to stay
there and the claim requires more employees not the same number. So does that
make it 'not possible'? Maybe not quite because firstly more than 2 of 5 could
come down in some change of plan. I think it is likely we would know about it if
a private company was training employees, but likely isn't really enough.

Secondly, there could be possibility of transferring astronauts to the
employment of a private company. While I would not expect this to happen for a
number of reasons like you would want the employees time to consider it and be
able to make different pension and life insurance arrangements after the company
had announced the plans so that the information didn't leak. Again expectation
does not reach level of impossibility.

So if that doesn't do it, how about it being against the law? NASA authorisation
Act passed 7 March 2017 includes things like

It shall be the policy of the United States, in consultation with its
international partners in the ISS program, to support full and complete
utilization of the ISS through at least 2024. ``(b) NASA Action.--In furtherance
of the policy set forth in subsection (a), NASA shall-- ``(1) pursue
international, commercial, and intragovernmental means to maximize ISS logistics
supply, maintenance, and operational capabilities, reduce risks to ISS systems
sustainability, and offset and minimize United States operations costs relating
to the ISS; ``(2) utilize, to the extent practicable, the ISS for the
development of capabilities and technologies needed for the future of human
space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit; and ``(3) utilize, if practical and
cost effective, the ISS for Science Mission Directorate missions in low-Earth

So it would appear unlawful for half the ISS to be sold or leased to a private

While this law could be changed, I think the US public, senators and congressmen
would call for a public consultation period which makes it impractical to happen
by 24 July 2017. Perhaps if there was some compelling reasoning for a major
shift in policy perhaps it might not be completely impossible. Just because I
cannot think what such compelling reasoning might be is not proof beyond doubt
that such compelling reasoning does not exist and will not come into existence.
With Trump embattled with Russiagate, is he likely to start a major
controversial change in policy regarding ISS? It is six years since last NASA
Authorisation Act and this one is fairly uncontroversial. A major controversial
U turn in policy surely cannot get through in a couple of months and then
everything happen to transfer astronauts in space to employment of a private
company - surely that is insane?

The boundary between truly incredible and impossible is difficult to judge and
perhaps the tendency is to be cautious to ensure it is truly impossible before
judging the claim but it surely cannot be much longer before that position
becomes untenable if not already.


(crandles 7886)

still holding 428 no position

> On 18 October 2016 at 23:45 "chrisran.bma e-mail" <>
> wrote:
> > > On 18 October 2016 at 19:50 Neal Gafter <>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > FX Claim Spce can now be judged 0.
> >
> > >
> I have thought that too, though on reflection perhaps the judge has to
> decide about Space Adventures Ltd. They have had no employees in space but did
> have customers in space in each year from 2005 to 2009. I haven't managed to
> find any accounts: (private US company so are accounts available to public?)
> However, as they are still around and trying to develop a moon orbit product,
> three consecutive years of profit seems at least plausible. If 'post a profit'
> requires accounts to be published, then possibly they still might do so in the
> remaining 21 months even if that seems unlikely. Hard to claim this is a
> 'space based operation' but the phrase in clause 1 is only 'space operation'
> and that seems easier to satisfy unless the judge thinks it is intended to
> require 'space based operation' despite the wording.
> It seems vanishingly unlikely for Space Adventures Ltd to arrange to buy
> the ISS and put sufficient employees on board before 24 July 2017, but I
> struggle to say it is 'impossible'. It would likely take far more time but it
> isn't impossible for secret negotiations to already have been ongoing for some
> time. There is also the question of whether the 3 year profit period has to
> overlap the one year employee test period.
> If the judge considers the activities of Space Adventures Ltd do count as
> a 'space operation' and the periods do not have to overlap, perhaps the claim
> should only be judged at zero one year before the deadline, or maybe a month
> or two earlier when that time is insufficient to arrange to get sufficient
> employees into space by 24 July 2017. While scheduling a new flight is likely
> to take a lot of time, arranging to buy use of an already scheduled Soyuz
> flight seems possible even if unlikely.
> So perhaps, depending on judge's view of issues above, appropriate
> judgement time might be immediately after last manned launch before 24th July
> 2017? Or maybe this is either sufficiently ludicrous enough to dismiss it or
> requires legislation to be passed making 9 months impossibly short?
> Regards
> Chris Randles
> (crandles 7886) negative holdings in spce so would be quite happy with no
> judgement now rather than later; (but is it correct to do so? If so, just as a
> matter of interest, under what reasoning?)


All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL