Murder on the Moon

I was perusing Quora when I came across this:

https://www.quora.com/If-I-was-an-as...f-any-moon-law

The first answer (currently) there is in line with my understandings.
Basically Outer Space Treaty applies and as a result laws of the launching
nation applies.

But then, I realized things MIGHT get complicated.

At the Federal level, I think the applicable laws a
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

Specifically paragraph (b) "Within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States,"

I think it's clear from intent and other sources that if the murder occurred
inside say a US government launched craft on the Moon or US government base,
this would apply.

If it happens on the surface during an EVA, then it's less clear. (I think
though I'd argue as the prosecutor that the spacesuit itself being a fully
self-contained life support system and property of the US government would
count as "territorial jurisdiction". As the defense attorney I'd argue that
the idea of a space suit as territory was ridiculous.)

But what happens if it's a not a government craft? Then I think the idea of
territorial jurisdiction is even MORE nebulous.

And my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Outer Space
Territory while it bases a lot of its stuff on maritime law makes it clear
they're not equal.

And since you're under the jurisdiction of a state, I can't see state laws
applying.

But let's take it further... what if it's a crime that's NOT covered in
Federal Law (I don't think there's Federal laws for stealing). Then what?

This would be heard by a federal court as a felony on the high seas as part of the OST.

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:45:18 AM UTC+12, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-07-31 10:04, Alain Fournier wrote:
I you commit a crime on the Moon, some court will probably go after you..
You can try to claim that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Generally, claiming a court doesn't have jurisdiction is generally
because another court claims jurisdiction over such matters. (In Canada
for instance, Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction).

On the Moon, as there is no local court to claim jurisdiction, it
becomes easier for a earth court to make that claim.

If/when we start a Mars colony, it will be interesting to monitor the
legal evolution of the colony. It may initially be a "municipality" that
is part of Texas, with local police that enforces state and US laws. And
eventually may gain "territory" status like Guam and eventually secede
from USA and become independent country. (whether part of the UN would
be a big question and this is where the Star Trek "United Federation of
Planets" starts to make sense.

Independance from the original country would depend on whether the
colony is self sufficient/profitable or still depends on the home
countrty for survival.

This is equivalent to the questions surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death, where the rules of law cannot be followed;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am2NySewXsM

However, for an astronaut, who is employed by a Federal agency, or a contractor to that Federal agency, the OST applies, and while no cases have been brought, its pretty clear to those who follow such things that in the Cislunar case at least, it would be tried in a Federal court under some variant of the a felony committed on the high seas.

Mars is a bit different, particularly if there is a permanent population. This is likely one reason Musk is promoting the idea of one way emmigration to Mars without the possibility of return to Earth. Legally then these Martians are 'native populations' and have rights to organise their own form of government as an indigenous people;

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/...s/DRIPS_en.pdf

Others who worry about such things have organised a study on what a Martian government may be like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am2NySewXsM

And this has been treated in literature by no less than Robert Heinlein in his book, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" which I recommend highly;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jif0y7k-OXk

http://drnissani.net/MNISSANI/Revolu...hMistress..pdf

it talks about how a bunch of sons and daughters of criminals and their keepers interred on the moon organise a revolution against the prison system and create their own government.

As a practical matter the difficulty comes for any body on Earth seeking to project their will on to a native Lunar or Martian population is the inability of terrestrial bodies to enforce any rules on the Martian population. This ability is very limited using today's technology. Though advanced propaganda techniques will likely play an important role.

In any event, those who emmigrate permanently to Mars say from Earth will likely have predictable attitudes and capacities that will shape the politics of the growing Martian population.

(1) They will be highly technical,
(2) They will be dissatisfied with conditions on Earth,
(3) They will harbour a sense of possibility not available to them on Earth,

and so forth...

So, what will they be like?

Very likely they will be sceptical and very aware of the limitations of today's systems of government. They will very likely use the most advanced techniques to organise their affairs on Mars. To this end they will likely gravitate to;

(1) Least restrictive most productive interactions,
(2) Mediated by emergent networks of decision making,
(3) Evaluated by a multi-dimensional system of accounting,

I've given this some thought in the following videos;

Emergent banking system
https://vimeo.com/29419399

How bitcoins work
https://vimeo.com/63012490

The coming collapse - and how we will emerge from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE

The new population freeing itself from the artificial scarcity of the current ruling oligarchy will create tremendous wealth for themselves, and being of uniformly high intelligence and capacities, will become the center of progress for humanity. They will be the starting point of continued expansion across the solar system and the stars beyond,

Galactic Colonisation
https://vimeo.com/40197828

So, what about murder off-world?

That depends on when in the development of off-world society a murder occurs.

At the outset the frontier will be travelled by expeditions organised on Earth. So, the rules will be well established. Later, when there is a native population that calls a place home, it will be more like the old West, where people rely on themselves and their neighbours to maintain their rights and privileges and maintain order. A shoot out at the OK Corral sort of thing. This need not be a bad thing.

https://www.corbettreport.com/anarchy-on-the-streets/

Depending on the underlying social conditions.

Given their background and where they came from originally, extra-planetary locals will not cede these local claims and rights easily to distant authorities without a fight. In fact, they will very likely use advanced technological means to enforce a freer fairer system than is possible today. If they are successful in this regard, this will create a new paradigm that will inform and enlarge the center as frontiers have always reinvigorated the center.

Bringing the world to life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RchePX5gElc

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

This would be heard by a federal court as a felony on the high seas as part
of the OST.

Can you point out where in the OST this is stated?


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:37:47 AM UTC+12, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-07-30 23:04, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

If it happens on the surface during an EVA, then it's less clear. (I think
though I'd argue as the prosecutor that the spacesuit itself being a fully
self-contained life support system and property of the US government would
count as "territorial jurisdiction".


Consider a US astronaut doing EVA from russian airlock with an Orlan
space suit, and the US astronaut kills the Russian one while attached to
a US segment module.

There is an intergovernmental agreement between Russia and the USA related to the operation of the ISS.

http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/lsc2013/tech-05E.pdf

You can go down this list of agreements and determine what might happen in this instance.

Given the poor state of relations between Russia and the USA today, (Russia annexed Crimea following US support of regime change in Ukraine) it will be a challenge to not turn this into a political event for each party. In that regard, the details of who has responsibility and so forth, spelled out in the operating agreements, will likely be secondary to these atmospherics.

As a practical matter, it depends on how the murder is done, and if the US astronaut can get away with it.

After all, things are very dangerous in space. Also, all the parties involved are smart, capable, motivated to be selected in the first place. They will not likely murder someone for spurious reasons. The reasons will be deep and well considered, and a murder will be planned and likely gotten away with.

This is reinforced by the regulatory regime. The folks who manage each of these programmes in each of the countrie won't want to jeapordise their careers, so they will tend to see a murder attempt, as an accident and reinforce that narrative.

Consider that in 2013 the Italian astronaut Luca Parmatano nearly drowned when the suit liquid cooling undergarment sprang a leak and released about a litre of water inside his suit during a 6.5 hour space walk.

http://www.space.com/22485-italian-a...eak-video.html
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...ter_helmet.jpg

One can imagine a murderer befriending his target, and prepping the target's suit with a similar leak which calls the astronaut targeted for death back in from a space walk, and a helpful murderer is there with a 2 litre plastic bottle to evacuate the water from the suit around the astronauts mouth and nose. Now, the bottle in this case is actually filled partially with water, which the murderer shoots down his victims throat and follows by holding his mouth and nose shut until they pass out. The murderer could then pretend to give mouth to mouth resucitation to this 'friend' but not really deliver air at all.

Thats rather dramatic and deniable as an accident. Decompression has to be the easiest way to kill someone in space. The logic controls aboard a Soyuz are rather simple, and can be easily circumvented. Thus a decompression can be arranged rather easily. Decompression has happened before aboard Soyuz, so this is rather helpful in selling the idea that it happened again. This has the benefit of removing the death far from the station, and focusing it on Russian equipment and territory.

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/s...unes-soyuz-11/

So a decompression accident can be arranged - to provide a quicker death that is politically easier to deal with and more deniable. Too bad about the folks who were with the target, but that isn't likely to stop a dedicated murderer who plans to commit a murder in space.

Now, despite the high opinion I and others have of astronauts, thinking that they wouldn't succumb to murder, reality may be quite different. One may recall that in 2007 Lisa Nowak was found guilty of attempted murder, due to a love triangle.

http://www.denverpost.com/2007/02/05...triangle-plot/

Which addressed the question of whether there is sex in space! Obviously there was. Drug abuse may be rampant.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...g-pills-space/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072702359.html

A friend of mine dated the former wife of an astronaut and found that she and the astronaut in question, routinely used ectasy. Now, in all fairness, ecstasy was legal in 1984, and is still legal in Switzerland. Apparently there were variations of the sensory deprivation studies done in the 1970s - and these continue into space in the 1980s and 90s.

The point is, drug use is widespread among certain of the astronaut corps according to this, and news headlines clearly show that US astronauts at least, do succumb to passion at times that lead to poor deciion making. This may one day lead to murder perhaps, if the population is large and diverse enough.

At this stage, there are so few people, that only a clever murderer will get away with anything. People will generally know what's going on well before anything happens, and they may even take matters into their own hands if they feel that's best for the programme.

That is astronaut A gets into a fight with astronaut B because of them stealing the affections of astronaut C on a multi-year mission. So, astronaut A decides to do B in.

This is totally different than say astronaut A is working for the CIA and astronaut B is instrumental to the success of a Russian military operation. So, the USA would like astronaut B to die on the mission, preferably in a way that embarasses Russia in the process.

In the first instance, any rash action by astronaut A will likely cause the other members of the crew to react negatively to the attempt, leading to an 'accident' with A, following injury or death of B through a similar 'accident' - that's the narrative of the crew.

Families and remote communities since the beginning of time have dealt with their own issues in this way and this will likely continue. Sure, a JAG officer or equivalent may want to inspect things, but any outsider will have a hard time penetrating to the truth of the matter, until the population is large enough and diverse enough, for appeals to authority make sense to the population.





Practically, "territory" might be better defined by which control centre
is choreographing the EVA, Houston or Moscow.


This is covered in the IGA on space station operations which I linked to above.

More realistically: Consider a MIR-like accident causing fire and rapid
depressurization with US cremembvers closing hatch to Russian segment
comdenming the russian crew to die (in order to save those who are on
the US segment).

An accident is different than a murder. Notwithstanding that a clever murderer in a tight community will likely seek to befriend their target, and seek to murder them in a way that looks like an accident. The preferred method would involve a space walk or some similar risky activity.

That is, astronaut A is tripping and having sex with astronaut C and C takes up with B at some point. A as a result hates B and wants C back and believes if B were out of the picture, C would definitely come back.

So, there we have a precursor to murder. Now, If the mission is a few weeks, and A goes back to his wife, nothing is likely to happen. If the mission is a few years, and Earth is far away, and A is perhaps young an inexperienced, then A may act on this impulse to kill B.

So, A thinks how to kill A.

The first thing is for A to befriend B and say there are no hard feelings. Now, in this instance, C may come back of their own accord. The murder plan would be averted in that case.

But, say it doesn't happen like that. Say C is very happy with B and makes it clear to A its over. Say also that A believes if B were gone, C would definitely come back. So, in this instance, A will definitely carry out a plan to kill B.

Like I said, the best course of action for A in this environment is to befriend B and be so helpful to B, and even play upon B's guilt at 'stealing' C, that B relies on A to help him out and eventually comes to believe A is his friend.

This puts A in a position to carry out a plan to murder B. A depressurisation of B's suit. A leak of fluids followed by being helpful to make sure a drowning takes place covertly.

Now, others in the crew may be suspicious of these events, but they will have every reason to accept the narrative going forward. Also, if A were wise, they wouldn't approach C. They would let C approach them. They would also make it hard for C (but not to hard) to take up relations again.

In that case, prosecution is avoided.

If A is discovered at any step along the way, and after, remember, A has to live with the guilt of killing B, even when they get away with it. Then A may have an accident self inflicted, or A may be discovered. In that case, they would have to overcome the crew's commitment to the narrative up to that point. It would be difficult to get them to disrupt their mission to such an extent that they have to change the narrative, explain why they didn't catch it in the beginning and so forth.

Then there would be some sort of prosecution - but that would refer to whatever IGA was signed prior to the mission, and whatever the employmenet contract said with the parties involved, and so forth.

I assume in such a case, there would be some sort of committee setup to
analyse the situation and likely rule that it was not a crime and that
closing the hatch was a reasonable "instinct" reaction to save lives.

A narrative would be carefully thought through before being made public. The entire crew of survivors prior to arrival of any authority, would have a change to develop a detailed narrative that would likely stick given their capabilities as individuals.

Have there ever been real cases where a hatch was closed in a submarine,
trapping some crewmen to drown, while preserving the rest of the sub ?
(Often depicted in movies, but wondering if this ever happened, or if
once flooding starts, the sub is generally totally lost).

Its pretty easy to be in this sort of situation when you're at battle at sea. As JFK once said, "It was easy, they sank my boat."

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in...and-PT109.aspx

Of course, for a would be murderer, being in battle makes things especially easy. However, affairs are arranged among crews to minimise interpersonal conflict and build an esprit de corps among crews. This too has a long history.

On Jul/31/2016 at 1:45 PM, JF Mezei wrote :
On 2016-07-31 10:04, Alain Fournier wrote:
I you commit a crime on the Moon, some court will probably go after you.
You can try to claim that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Generally, claiming a court doesn't have jurisdiction is generally
because another court claims jurisdiction over such matters. (In Canada
for instance, Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction).

On the Moon, as there is no local court to claim jurisdiction, it
becomes easier for a earth court to make that claim.

If/when we start a Mars colony, it will be interesting to monitor the
legal evolution of the colony. It may initially be a "municipality" that
is part of Texas, with local police that enforces state and US laws. And
eventually may gain "territory" status like Guam and eventually secede
from USA and become independent country. (whether part of the UN would
be a big question and this is where the Star Trek "United Federation of
Planets" starts to make sense.

Independance from the original country would depend on whether the
colony is self sufficient/profitable or still depends on the home
countrty for survival.

Just speculation on my part, but I think that a Martian colony will
declare independence in relatively short order. They would want to have
laws specific to there situation, and they wouldn't want an Earthly
government to decide on things they haven't experienced and might
not understand the implications of their decisions. And since
communications between Mars and Earth will be slow Martians would
be the best people to write Martian laws.

I also think that Earthlings should immediately state under which
conditions a declaration of independence would be acceptable. You
don't want a group of 50 colonist to declare that they are the state
of all Mars. We shouldn't put very strict conditions for independence
but we should put some conditions. That would make the process of
independence easier. If you know that the governments on Earth will
accept your declaration of independence, it is easier to do. It is
better for Earth powers to say now what is required, if they wait
until colonist are on their way, it can be seen as hostile towards
the colonist.


Alain Fournier

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 12:32:28 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

This would be heard by a federal court as a felony on the high seas as part
of the OST.

Can you point out where in the OST this is stated?


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Well, the OST sets the framework in which all parties to the treaty operate.. The ISA for the ISS derives from this requirement. The ISA treaty of 1998 that has been signed are modelled after existing legistlation related to international liability on the high seas. While the ISA for the ISS waives certain liabilities due to the dangers associated with space travel, it does not waive damages caused by willful misconduct. (Article 16 and 17 of the ISA) In the case of willful misconduct, it is up to the ISS partner who is in charge of the criminal party, and the ISS partner who suffered damages, and the ISS partner on whose registered spacecraft the crime took place, to arrange prosecution of the criminal party.

In the OST itself - the requirement to supervise and authorise activities in accordance with the treaty are spelled out;

Article 6 says activities in space, on the moon and other celestial bodies will have to be authorised and supervised by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. So, the USA will arrange to authorise and supervise its activities as they engage in them.

Article 8 says a State Party to the Treaty shall retain jurisdiction over an object registered to them. Even if they are launched into outer space or constructed upon another celestial body. So, the USA retains jurisdiction of objects registered to them no matter where they are launched or constructed.

Article 13 says Any practical questions arising in connexion with activities carried out in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be resolved by the State Parties to the Treaty. So the USA has the right to resolve any practical questions arising in connexion with activities it carries out in space, or authorises to be carried out in space.

Under these articles, the USA enters agreements with private entities and other governments, and manages its military and civilian government personnell accordingly, and agrees on how to interact with other parties outside its jurisdiction.

Now the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement on operations in the International Space Station spells out in detail the jurisdiction and control over persons.

Under the IGA for the ISS - Article 5.2 of the IGA provides:

« ...each Partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers ... and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals »;

* The IGA provides that each of the Cooperating Agencies shall own the elements that the Partners respectively provide (i.e. ISS user and resource elements listed in the Annex to the IGA) and also the equipment in or on the Space Station;

*The Partner States have each taken steps, including at legislative level in certain cases, before they went ahead with their ratification of the IGA to TRANSLATE IN THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM their ISS Cooperation-related obligations (including for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction and control).

The model for this legal system to discharge damage claims between parties is the 1958 UN convention on the High Seas.

One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:32:57 AM UTC+12, Alain Fournier wrote:
On Jul/31/2016 at 1:45 PM, JF Mezei wrote :
On 2016-07-31 10:04, Alain Fournier wrote:
I you commit a crime on the Moon, some court will probably go after you.
You can try to claim that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Generally, claiming a court doesn't have jurisdiction is generally
because another court claims jurisdiction over such matters. (In Canada
for instance, Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction).

On the Moon, as there is no local court to claim jurisdiction, it
becomes easier for a earth court to make that claim.

If/when we start a Mars colony, it will be interesting to monitor the
legal evolution of the colony. It may initially be a "municipality" that
is part of Texas, with local police that enforces state and US laws. And
eventually may gain "territory" status like Guam and eventually secede
from USA and become independent country. (whether part of the UN would
be a big question and this is where the Star Trek "United Federation of
Planets" starts to make sense.

Independance from the original country would depend on whether the
colony is self sufficient/profitable or still depends on the home
countrty for survival.

Just speculation on my part, but I think that a Martian colony will
declare independence in relatively short order. They would want to have
laws specific to there situation, and they wouldn't want an Earthly
government to decide on things they haven't experienced and might
not understand the implications of their decisions. And since
communications between Mars and Earth will be slow Martians would
be the best people to write Martian laws.

I also think that Earthlings should immediately state under which
conditions a declaration of independence would be acceptable. You
don't want a group of 50 colonist to declare that they are the state
of all Mars. We shouldn't put very strict conditions for independence
but we should put some conditions. That would make the process of
independence easier. If you know that the governments on Earth will
accept your declaration of independence, it is easier to do. It is
better for Earth powers to say now what is required, if they wait
until colonist are on their way, it can be seen as hostile towards
the colonist.


Alain Fournier

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 12:32:28 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

This would be heard by a federal court as a felony on the high seas as
part
of the OST.

Can you point out where in the OST this is stated?


--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Well, the OST sets the framework in which all parties to the treaty
operate. The ISA for the ISS derives from this requirement. The ISA
treaty of 1998 that has been signed are modelled after existing
legistlation related to international liability on the high seas. While
the ISA for the ISS waives certain liabilities due to the dangers
associated with space travel, it does not waive damages caused by willful
misconduct. (Article 16 and 17 of the ISA) In the case of willful
misconduct, it is up to the ISS partner who is in charge of the criminal
party, and the ISS partner who suffered damages, and the ISS partner on
whose registered spacecraft the crime took place, to arrange prosecution of
the criminal party.

In the OST itself - the requirement to supervise and authorise activities
in accordance with the treaty are spelled out;

Article 6 says activities in space, on the moon and other celestial bodies
will have to be authorised and supervised by the appropriate State Party to
the Treaty. So, the USA will arrange to authorise and supervise its
activities as they engage in them.

Article 8 says a State Party to the Treaty shall retain jurisdiction over
an object registered to them. Even if they are launched into outer space
or constructed upon another celestial body. So, the USA retains
jurisdiction of objects registered to them no matter where they are
launched or constructed.

Article 13 says Any practical questions arising in connexion with
activities carried out in the exploration and use of outer space, including
the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be resolved by the State Parties
to the Treaty. So the USA has the right to resolve any practical
questions arising in connexion with activities it carries out in space, or
authorises to be carried out in space.

Under these articles, the USA enters agreements with private entities and
other governments, and manages its military and civilian government
personnell accordingly, and agrees on how to interact with other parties
outside its jurisdiction.

Now the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement on operations in the International
Space Station spells out in detail the jurisdiction and control over
persons.

Under the IGA for the ISS - Article 5.2 of the IGA provides:

« ...each Partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements
it registers ... and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its
nationals »;

* The IGA provides that each of the Cooperating Agencies shall own the
elements that the Partners respectively provide (i.e. ISS user and resource
elements listed in the Annex to the IGA) and also the equipment in or on
the Space Station;

*The Partner States have each taken steps, including at legislative level
in certain cases, before they went ahead with their ratification of the IGA
to TRANSLATE IN THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM their ISS Cooperation-related
obligations (including for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction and
control).

The model for this legal system to discharge damage claims between parties
is the 1958 UN convention on the High Seas.


Yes, none of that appears to address my point, specifically murder on the
Moon outside of an particular vehicle.

We're not talking about ISS which as you point out, has a number of specific
agreements.
The OST states what happens within a Nation's craft, etc. However, it does
not appear to cover outside of the craft and as such it's not clear Federal
law would apply.

In other words, this appears at first pass (unless you can show a specific
clause saying maritime law specifically applies, and from what I've
researched, it specifically does NOT apply) to be similar to Yellowstone
issue I mentioned. Federal jurisdiction doesn't appear to apply and there's
no specific state that has jurisdiction.

Again, just consider the case of a US Citizen killing another while on EVA
from a private Moon base.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

William Mook wrote:


One of the difficulties surrounding Yellowstone's zone of death is that there are no permanent residents in the park. So, its impossible to organise a jury. This is part of Musk's genius in insisting that people volunteer for one way journeys. This means they become residents and indigenous peoples on the planet they end up on. This gives them certain capacities and rights - and allows then to do what you suggest.


Where does Musk say what you claim? From what I've read, his position
is just the opposite. After all, he's got all those supply rockets
coming back from Mars essentially empty.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn