hubble highjacked

hi ..

two assumptions:

1. hubble is really given up by NASA - no more servicing missions ..

2. spaceX or other company (not necessarily a US company .. thus
reducing legal vulnerability) builds or buys (russian r7 with sojus
perhaps?) a launcher capable to doing a manned mission to hubble orbit

........................................

hubble gyroscopes or computer fails and hubble is no longer under
control. company launches, docks with hubble and affects repairs ..
without asking NASA

..............................

on the sea the case would be clear (at least as far as i remember the
comments on admiralty law, towing and salvaging during the course for
my sailing license - please correct me) - a salvage company saved a
derelict wreck, floating without control or crew .. the wreck now
belongs to the salvage company .... at the very minimum (if salvage
would be successfully contested at admiralty court) lloyds open
contract would be called in, giving the company 10% of the salvaged
value ...

how is the situation in space .. ?

questions for discussion:

- can the company claim ownership to hubble?
- can NASA successfully content this claim? if yes - how much salvage
value would the company be granted? 10% of USD 3 *109 ?
- what would the actual costs of such a mission be?
- would USD 300 million (10% of value) enough to pay for the
mission? (prices of sojus seem to indicate - YES)
- if NASA is not able or not willing to content the claim - can they
try to get hubble back? how? (space marines?)
- should the company successfully "own" hubble now - can they make
enough money to pay for the mission by selling telescope time
(assuming three years of service before next repair mission is
necessary and 90% availability gives 23668 telescope hours to sell,
divided by USD 3*108 gives USD 12675 per hour - steep, but too steep?

the cost for telescope hours is based on 10% of hubble value (USD 3000
million - see also lloyds open contract) - if the company manages to
hold hubble, the telescope hour costs will of course be based on the
actual mission costs - what does a complete sojus cost ? what would
the spare parts costs?

looking forward to your responses ..

servus

markus

Markus Baur a écrit dans le message :
...
hi ..

two assumptions:

1. hubble is really given up by NASA - no more servicing missions ..

2. spaceX or other company (not necessarily a US company .. thus
reducing legal vulnerability) builds or buys (russian r7 with sojus
perhaps?) a launcher capable to doing a manned mission to hubble orbit

.......................................

hubble gyroscopes or computer fails and hubble is no longer under
control. company launches, docks with hubble and affects repairs ..
without asking NASA

.............................

on the sea the case would be clear (at least as far as i remember the
comments on admiralty law, towing and salvaging during the course for
my sailing license - please correct me) - a salvage company saved a
derelict wreck, floating without control or crew .. the wreck now
belongs to the salvage company .... at the very minimum (if salvage
would be successfully contested at admiralty court) lloyds open
contract would be called in, giving the company 10% of the salvaged
value ...

how is the situation in space .. ?

Unfortunately, the high seas laws don't apply in space.

According to current space treaties ( I'd have to look up my references to
say which one ), an object launched in space is forever the responsibility
of the country which launched it, or which countains the company which
ordered it launched.

"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" wrote in
:

Markus Baur a écrit dans le message :
...

hubble gyroscopes or computer fails and hubble is no longer under
control. company launches, docks with hubble and affects repairs ..
without asking NASA

on the sea the case would be clear (at least as far as i remember the
comments on admiralty law, towing and salvaging during the course for
my sailing license - please correct me) - a salvage company saved a
derelict wreck, floating without control or crew .. the wreck now
belongs to the salvage company .... at the very minimum (if salvage
would be successfully contested at admiralty court) lloyds open
contract would be called in, giving the company 10% of the salvaged
value ...

how is the situation in space .. ?

Unfortunately, the high seas laws don't apply in space.

According to current space treaties ( I'd have to look up my
references to say which one ), an object launched in space is forever
the responsibility of the country which launched it, or which
countains the company which ordered it launched.

You are correct. 1967 Outer Space Treaty, article 8:

Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer
space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object,
and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial
body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects
landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is
not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by
their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the
limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried
shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish
identifying data prior to their return.



--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

hi ..

yes - this is surely correct - de jure ..

but - what happens if thae hypothetical company takes huble over
afdter it has been called "derelict" or "out of control" .. there is
no practical way for nasa / usa to take it back (expect sending
someone after it..)

is ther a way in the outer space treaty to hand responisbilty over to
another state ..?

servus

markus

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" wrote in
:


Markus Baur a écrit dans le message :
...

hubble gyroscopes or computer fails and hubble is no longer under
control. company launches, docks with hubble and affects repairs ..
without asking NASA

on the sea the case would be clear (at least as far as i remember the
comments on admiralty law, towing and salvaging during the course for
my sailing license - please correct me) - a salvage company saved a
derelict wreck, floating without control or crew .. the wreck now
belongs to the salvage company .... at the very minimum (if salvage
would be successfully contested at admiralty court) lloyds open
contract would be called in, giving the company 10% of the salvaged
value ...

how is the situation in space .. ?

Unfortunately, the high seas laws don't apply in space.

According to current space treaties ( I'd have to look up my
references to say which one ), an object launched in space is forever
the responsibility of the country which launched it, or which
countains the company which ordered it launched.


You are correct. 1967 Outer Space Treaty, article 8:

Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer
space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object,
and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial
body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects
landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is
not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by
their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the
limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried
shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish
identifying data prior to their return.

It's an interesting proposition. Back then, as I see it, the main idea behind
that part of the treaty was the return of surveillance/ recon satelite film
cannisters that landed outside the predicted recovery zone, and the return of
astrnoauts that land off course on foreign-controlled soil.

But a look at the making and breaking of treaties thru human history pretty
much shows they are at best only honored as long as they are convenient to one
party, and it boils down to who has the force to back up a claim or to deny
one. A non-US entity would have little to fear from a snagging mission, other
than maybe some trade wars on the ground.

I could imagine a modified Progress type vehicle being launched with a
grappling apparatus to snag the Hubble and re-boost it higher. I could even
picture a second mission where a Soyuz-riding cosmonaut, or taikonaut could do
some minor service to it, perhaps attach a new maneuvering unit to it to
supplement failed equipment. The practical side of what the US could or would
be able to do about it is, it would seem, little but diplomatic huffing and
puffing. Nobody's going to launch ICBM's over salvaging what the US itself is
calling surplus, abandoned gear.

But it's the economics of the situation that would ultimately be the show
stopper, not the technical or diplomatic issues. Like my wife says when I point
out some item with a ridiculously high valuation on E-bay:

" That assumes some other idiot is willing to pay that much for it, and until
he does, it has NO actual value".

In this case, a salvaged Hubble's image data would have a very small base of
people in the scientific community who would actually "need" it, and an even
smaller subset of those who could afford to pay for the previously subsdized
imagery, considering the hijacked Hubble would need a whole new support and
tracking/data system on the ground (NASA wouldn't let you use theirs).

Unless you're some bald, nehru-jacket and monocle-wearing psychopathic
criminal mastermind freak, living in a hidden volcanic lair, etc etc. what
they heck are you going to *DO* with this enourmous tchatchke? I don't think
it's any use as a spy satellite, it wasn't designed for that.

(MSu1049321) wrote in
:

But a look at the making and breaking of treaties thru human history
pretty
much shows they are at best only honored as long as they are
convenient to one party, and it boils down to who has the force to
back up a claim or to deny one.

Umm, no. Even when the US wants out of a treaty, they follow the procedures
*written into the treaty itself* to legally withdraw from it.

A non-US entity would have little to
fear from a snagging mission, other than maybe some trade wars on the
ground.

Those trade wars could be more significant than you think. A private
enterprise hijacking HST would suddenly find it very hard to do business in
the US. It may find its US bank accounts frozen, and its assets seized. A
foreign nation doing the same might find tariffs or sanctions slapped on
it. It would not take much of that to cause billions of dollars of damage
to their economy. The Russians and Chinese aren't stupid. They won't hijack
HST because they know it's not worth the hassle. If you think the US
wouldn't go that far, you are invited to review the history of the Iran
Nonproliferation Act, or the Honduran moonrock scandal.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Markus Baur wrote in
:

yes - this is surely correct - de jure ..

but - what happens if thae hypothetical company takes huble over
afdter it has been called "derelict" or "out of control" .. there is
no practical way for nasa / usa to take it back (expect sending
someone after it..)

No, but the hypothetical company would suddenly find it very difficult to
do business in the US, and would likely find its bank accounts frozen and
its assets seized. Unless said company reaps a *huge* revenue stream from
HST, they'd find it's not worth the hassle.

is ther a way in the outer space treaty to hand responisbilty over to
another state ..?

The treaty doesn't explicitly say so, but I think it should be possible for
the purchasing state to buy insurance to indemnify the launching state.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Markus Baur" wrote in message
...
hi ..

two assumptions:

1. hubble is really given up by NASA - no more servicing missions ..

2. spaceX or other company (not necessarily a US company .. thus
reducing legal vulnerability) builds or buys (russian r7 with sojus
perhaps?) a launcher capable to doing a manned mission to hubble orbit\

The Space Shuttle is the only existing means of doing a manned
mission to the Hubble Space Telescope for the forseeable future.
There is nothing else realistically even on the drawing boards.

In article ,
Markus Baur wrote:
hubble gyroscopes or computer fails and hubble is no longer under
control. company launches, docks with hubble and affects repairs ..
without asking NASA..
on the sea the case would be clear ... a salvage company saved a
derelict wreck, floating without control or crew .. the wreck now
belongs to the salvage company ...

No. Absolutely 100% wrong. Even if maritime salvage law did apply in
space -- a very questionable assumption, since there is no indication
whatever that it does, and it conflicts with some of the space treaties --
the basic principle of salvage law is *NOT* "finders keepers".

"Salvage Law for Outer Space", Wayne N. White Jr., Proceedings of ASCE
Space 92, pp 2412-2422 (note that White is a lawyer):

Maritime and Admiralty Law
...

The salvor does not become the owner of the salved property, he
merely has a lien against the ship and cargo which can be sold to
pay the award if necessary (NORRIS 1991). [The reference is:
Norris, M. (1991) Benedict on Admiralty vol. 3A, ss 24, 157-58,
7th ed, Mathew Bender, NY.]

The only instance in which the salvor would become the owner of
the property would be in those cases where the court finds that the
property has been abandoned. ... In the absence of express abandonment
by the property's owner, United States courts have only found
abandonment when adjudicating salvage of long lost wrecks (see e.g.
"Treasure Salvors Inc. v. Unidentified, Wrecked, and Abandoned Sailing
Vessel, 408 F.Supp. 907, 1976 A.M.C. 703 (S.D. Fla. 1976); aff'd 569
F.2d 330, 1978 A.M.C. 1404 (5th Cir. 1978)", cited in NORRIS 1991).

Moreover, none of this applies if the original owner is a government, as
it is in this scenario. Government property is completely off limits to
commercial salvage unless the government in question grants permission,
under the principle of "sovereign immunity". (People interested in
salvaging USN aircraft wrecks often run into legal trouble with this; the
USN has a policy of refusing permission.)

questions for discussion:
- can the company claim ownership to hubble?

Not a chance.

- can NASA successfully content this claim? if yes - how much salvage
value would the company be granted? 10% of USD 3 *109 ?

Yes, they can. It's government property and you didn't get government
permission. Not only do you get no salvage award, you end up in jail for
theft of government property. (Or worse: an ambitious prosecutor might
be able to charge you with piracy, which is a capital crime...)

- should the company successfully "own" hubble now - can they make
enough money to pay for the mission by selling telescope time
(assuming three years of service before next repair mission is
necessary and 90% availability gives 23668 telescope hours to sell,
divided by USD 3*108 gives USD 12675 per hour - steep, but too steep?

I think you would find it very difficult to get the cooperation of the
Space Telescope Science Institute in such an endeavor -- they are funded
by NASA -- and essentially impossible to operate Hubble without them.
This isn't a 6-inch Celestron. Hubble is a very complicated piece of
hardware and there is no published operator's manual for it. (In fact,
there probably is no complete, coherent operator's manual anywhere --
a significant fraction of the knowledge needed to run it is probably
in the heads of the STScI staff.)

To say nothing of Hubble's reliance on government-owned support facilities
like the TDRS relay satellites.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
Markus Baur wrote:
but - what happens if thae hypothetical company takes huble over
afdter it has been called "derelict" or "out of control" .. there is
no practical way for nasa / usa to take it back (expect sending
someone after it..)

Sure there is. Any US assets you have are impounded; when you land, the
police are waiting to haul you off to jail, pending an extradition hearing
on charges of piracy.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |