NASA sued for dumping battery packs from space!

[MT]

[Gyro]

As I understand it, the issue in the video is that it is the International Space Station, therefore not just NASA.


Edit: As for who manufactured the batteries, and more importantly, who's decision it was to just dump them over the side however...

[soldar]

As I understand it, the issue in the video is that it is the International Space Station, therefore not just NASA.


Edit: As for who manufactured the batteries, and more importantly, who's decision it was to just dump them over the side however...

It is not from the ISS, it is from a NASA vehicle, as NASA has acknowledged.

[mendip_discovery]

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2024/04/15/nasa-completes-analysis-of-recovered-space-object/

In March 2021, NASA ground controllers used the International Space Station’s robotic arm to release a cargo pallet containing aging nickel hydride batteries from the space station following the delivery and installation of new lithium-ion batteries as part of power upgrades on the orbital outpost. The total mass of the hardware released from space station was about 5,800 pounds.

The hardware was expected to fully burn up during entry through Earth’s atmosphere on March 8, 2024. However, a piece of hardware survived re-entry and impacted a home in Naples, Florida. NASA collected the item in cooperation with the homeowner and analyzed the object at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

So from the ISS but instructed by NASA.

[MT]

So NASA let a box of batteries circulating around the globe for 3 years!

[David Hess]

The dumb part is that it would have been cheaper for NASA to compensate their victims than defend the lawsuit in court.  They must want to establish precedence that NASA is not responsible.

[David Hess]

So NASA let a box of batteries circulating around the globe for 3 years!

No, NASA allowed an uncontrolled reentry of something which they certified would burn up and did not.

[Bud]

@OP can you summarise the claim of the law suite. It is often that people post stuff where the meat is on page 65 of the referenced document or at 23:12 in the video.

[Gyro]

I think they might have smelted themselves some Nickel Iron meteorites / ingots, a new method of recycling?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2015.1131206

[RJSV]

   Yes, good idea.
   Jewelry might sell (limited to a couple of pieces), after lapidary slicing, and put mounted on rings, etc.   Now, then watch NASA come for their property back.

What's the legal chain of ownership,  after abandoned to burn up in re-entry.   NASA lawyers reading this, any, ?

[SmallCog]

They never paid their fine for littering in Australia after the Slylab re-entry

https://www.skymania.com/nasas-litter-bill-paid-30-years-on/


Likely a similar concept of don't set a precedent

[amyk]

   Yes, good idea.
   Jewelry might sell (limited to a couple of pieces), after lapidary slicing, and put mounted on rings, etc.   Now, then watch NASA come for their property back.

What's the legal chain of ownership,  after abandoned to burn up in re-entry.   NASA lawyers reading this, any, ?

Not a lawyer but I think they explicitly relinquished ownership if they deliberately decided to just dump it.

[SiliconWizard]

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Illegal-Dumping.htm

[Stray Electron]

   Yes, good idea.
   Jewelry might sell (limited to a couple of pieces), after lapidary slicing, and put mounted on rings, etc.   Now, then watch NASA come for their property back.

What's the legal chain of ownership,  after abandoned to burn up in re-entry.   NASA lawyers reading this, any, ?

Not a lawyer but I think they explicitly relinquished ownership if they deliberately decided to just dump it.

    That would depend on the jurisdiction and there is no jurisdiction in space.  OTOH that's probbly true anywhere within the US so the plaintiffs might be able to make a case.

    By comparison, if you're a criminal and throw a gun or other evidence out of your car on a public highway and the police find it and use it as evidence against you, would you be allowed to argue that the evidence was your private property and the police had to return it to you and should not be allowed to use it as evidence? 

    Or if you deliberately throw something out of your car and onto a public highway and someone else finds it and claims it, would you be allowed to claim that it was your private property and that the finder had to return it to you? 

[RJSV]

   Still, I'm intrigued by the concept of producing jewelry, or pendants particularly.   With a thin slicing lapidary saw, and mounted by a skilled artist, the (victim) of the battery crash, so to speak,  could try a few pieces, high priced and with gold chain... On eBay ?

   $700. Gold Chain 'Orbital Art'
               Pendant.  15 mm by 40 mm diameter,
               with silver housing.
               Authentication Certificate included..

[schmitt trigger]

They never paid their fine for littering in Australia after the Slylab re-entry

https://www.skymania.com/nasas-litter-bill-paid-30-years-on/


Likely a similar concept of don't set a precedent

I seem to recall an incident, perhaps 40+ years ago, where a Soviet spy spacecraft utilizing a radioactive generator which crashed in Canada?

Thanks Google! It was Kosmos 954.

[soldar]

That would depend on the jurisdiction and there is no jurisdiction in space.  OTOH that's probbly true anywhere within the US so the plaintiffs might be able to make a case.

Nations are responsible for damage caused by their space objects and must avoid contaminating space and celestial bodies.

https://www.spacefoundation.org/space_brief/international-space-law/

International Space Law

There are five international treaties underpinning space law, overseen by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS).

The Outer Space Treaty

“Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”

The treaty is the foundation of international space law for signatory nations (108 in 2019). The treaty presents principles for space exploration and operation:

    Space activities are for the benefit of all nations, and any country is free to explore orbit and beyond.
    There is no claim for sovereignty in space; no nation can “own” space, the Moon or any other body.
    Weapons of mass destruction are forbidden in orbit and beyond, and the Moon, the planets, and other celestial bodies can only be used for peaceful purposes.
    Any astronaut from any nation is an “envoy of mankind,” and signatory states must provide all possible help to astronauts when needed, including emergency landing in a foreign country or at sea.
    Signatory states are each responsible for their space activities, including private commercial endeavors, and must provide authorization and continuing supervision.
    Nations are responsible for damage caused by their space objects and must avoid contaminating space and celestial bodies.

[magic]

Maybe they left it in space, but their problem is that it landed in their home jurisdiction. Should have aimed it at North Korea or something

[SiliconWizard]

Yes. That's funky, imagine that: if all it took to get rid of inconvenient trash without any legal consequence was to throw it into space and let it fall back down wherever it gets, that would be a lot of fun.
Btw, what's the legal definition of space that is recognized internationally? What altitude exactly above sea level? Maybe that would be some good use for the Spinlaunch...