Skip to main content
Skeptics

Return to Question

Notice removed Draw attention by Zaibis
Bounty Ended with Just J for now's answer chosen by Zaibis
Notice added Draw attention by Zaibis
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Zaibis
Proofreading
Source Link
edit approved Aug 16, 2016 at 13:50
jwodder
edit approved Aug 16, 2016 at 13:50
jwodder
  • 493
  • 2
  • 9
  • 13

Is it true that Did NASA refusedrefuse to pay a 400$$400 fine, for littering caused by the deorbitdeorbiting of skylabSkylab?

This wikipediaThe Wikipedia article on the city of Esperance of the city Esperance states:

In 1979, pieces of the space station Skylab crashed onto Esperance after the craft broke up over the Indian Ocean. The municipality fined the United States $400 for littering. The fine was paid in April 2009, when radio show host Scott Barley of Highway Radio raised the funds from his morning show listeners, and paid the fine on behalf of NASA.

The partfact that a radio show collected the money to pay itthe fine on behalf of NASA 30 years after this lets me presuppositionlater implies that NASA denied this fine.

But skylabSkylab was unquestionableunquestionably property of and a project of the NASA, so by any law I can think of, the claim for compensation would be legal. Not to talk about about a laughable amount of 400$$400 due to littering the city. I mean, NASA has to pay billions a year for its projects. Why should they refuse paying 400$to pay $400 for something caused undoubtfullyundoubtedly by them?

Is it true that NASA refused to pay a 400$ fine, caused by the deorbit of skylab?

This wikipedia article of the city Esperance states:

In 1979, pieces of the space station Skylab crashed onto Esperance after the craft broke up over the Indian Ocean. The municipality fined the United States $400 for littering. The fine was paid in April 2009, when radio show host Scott Barley of Highway Radio raised the funds from his morning show listeners, and paid the fine on behalf of NASA.

The part that a radio show collected the money to pay it on behalf of NASA 30 years after this lets me presupposition that NASA denied this fine.

But skylab was unquestionable property and project of the NASA so by any law I can think of the claim for compensation would be legal. Not to talk about about a laughable amount of 400$ due to littering the city. I mean NASA has to pay billions a year for its projects. Why should they refuse paying 400$ caused undoubtfully by them?

Did NASA refuse to pay a $400 fine for littering caused by the deorbiting of Skylab?

The Wikipedia article on the city of Esperance states:

In 1979, pieces of the space station Skylab crashed onto Esperance after the craft broke up over the Indian Ocean. The municipality fined the United States $400 for littering. The fine was paid in April 2009, when radio show host Scott Barley of Highway Radio raised the funds from his morning show listeners, and paid the fine on behalf of NASA.

The fact that a radio show collected the money to pay the fine on behalf of NASA 30 years later implies that NASA denied this fine.

But Skylab was unquestionably property of and a project of NASA, so by any law I can think of, the claim for compensation would be legal. Not to talk about about a laughable amount of $400 due to littering the city. I mean, NASA has to pay billions a year for its projects. Why should they refuse to pay $400 for something caused undoubtedly by them?

Tweeted twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/765544975455121408
Source Link
Zaibis
Zaibis
  • 229
  • 2
  • 11

Is it true that NASA refused to pay a 400$ fine, caused by the deorbit of skylab?

This wikipedia article of the city Esperance states:

In 1979, pieces of the space station Skylab crashed onto Esperance after the craft broke up over the Indian Ocean. The municipality fined the United States $400 for littering. The fine was paid in April 2009, when radio show host Scott Barley of Highway Radio raised the funds from his morning show listeners, and paid the fine on behalf of NASA.

The part that a radio show collected the money to pay it on behalf of NASA 30 years after this lets me presupposition that NASA denied this fine.

But skylab was unquestionable property and project of the NASA so by any law I can think of the claim for compensation would be legal. Not to talk about about a laughable amount of 400$ due to littering the city. I mean NASA has to pay billions a year for its projects. Why should they refuse paying 400$ caused undoubtfully by them?