William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:02:20 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-24 02:03, William Mook wrote:

Or buy one from NASA. The point is, NASA is selling. A lease buy-back makes the most sense at this juncture, for them - if they wish to limit their exposure going forward and deal with the politics of letting the station go. Its far easier to condemn the station as a hazard if you don't own or operate it.


Currently, NASA has contractualo obligation towards other partners. So
if they lease back, they have to pay the commercial operator to continue
to provide those obligations to the partners.


Please cite these 'contracts'.


One the ISS contract runs out and is renegotriated, then all bets are
off in terms of who is responsible for what.


What "ISS contract" would that be?


http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-09-...ation-Contract

There are 15 international partners cited in this press release. I'm sure if you actually went looking for the contracts you'd find them.


In other words, you've got nothing to add and no cites for 'contracts'
(other than things like launch services to get their pieces up there).


In other words there are 15 international partners that have signed a
contract with NASA on the station. Your previous comment suggested
there weren't any. You freaking moron.


Nope. Those contracts are 'dead'. Again, you've got nothing to add
and no cites for 'contracts' that can 'run out'. I know you can't
read for context, but could you at least get someone to help you, you
****ing lunatic?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine