18

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?

jwodder
  • 494
  • 2
  • 9
  • 13
Zaibis
  • 229
  • 2
  • 11
  • 11
    Perhaps NASA didn't even know they were supposed to pay off $400 to some random island in the Indian Ocean. – John Dvorak Aug 15 '16 at 22:30
  • The question "why should they refuse" might be your way of suggesting that the claim is dubious, but actually trying to determine *why* they refused (if they did) would be beyond the scope of this site. – Nate Eldredge Aug 16 '16 at 03:26
  • 4
    @JanDvorak: Esperance isn't an island, it's a town on the mainland of Australia. – Nate Eldredge Aug 16 '16 at 03:28
  • 5
    Apologies for that, but my point still stands - nowhere does it say (or at least not in the quoted part) that NASA actively refused to pay the fine. Perhaps they didn't get to know about the fine, or perhaps they shrugged it off as a joke. TBH, $400 seems like nothing compared to the actual damage I would expect a fuel tank falling on a city to cause. The wiki article on Skylab uses the term "facetiously fined NASA". – John Dvorak Aug 16 '16 at 03:44
  • Fines produced by random countries where you don't have any kind of legal presence are useless... – Bakuriu Aug 16 '16 at 10:49
  • @JanDvorak: it is not the fueltank that hit anything. the lab broke apart over the indian ocean and quiet a lot of some milimeter up to a few centimeter parts littered all over the city. it is not a fine for some damage, caused to any object, but the fine for cleaning the littering all over the city. – Zaibis Aug 17 '16 at 06:39
  • 2
    @Bakuriu: AFAIK there is an international consense about space exploration that damage caused by an object in any case the liability to it is in hands of the one who shot it up in space/controlled it from there. Otherwise I could assume other states might not tolerate it so much letting space vehicles pass over there lands. I mean I could understand if it where Northkorea who would argue that they have no obligation to pay any fines. but this is Australia and USA. Why should this international consense here not apply? – Zaibis Aug 17 '16 at 06:46
  • "damage" <> "litter", "the municipality of Esperance" <> "nation of Australia." I'm not sure what the law was before the Litter Act of 1979 (for western Australia) went into effect, but looking at that legislation, the crime of littering is defined by saying that "any person" who litters is committing a crime. NASA is not a "person," so it wouldn't fall under the current littering statute. Perhaps entities like companies or organizations fall under *pollution* laws. In any case, it is not clear that there is legal standing to issue the citation. – PoloHoleSet Jun 15 '17 at 18:31
  • @PoloHoleSet: I might be wrong here, But in legal terms we are talking about a damage if something produces costs to me I hadn't without that occurrence. So cleaning the litter will have produced costs and therefor actually IS an damage... For the part of municipality versus nation you are right. I thought a bit too far when I wrote this statements as I wasn't aware the fine was just meant as joke and therefor, thought about a case having been escalated to some degree where it would be in the end represented by the nation. Feels somewhat nit picky to me, but yeah you are right about that. – Zaibis Jun 21 '17 at 06:07
  • @PoloHoleSet: For the "NASA is not a 'person'" statement. I doubt you are here right as well. I just can talk for Germany with certainty, but her companies and organizations fall under the term "juristic person" which is considered to be a "person". And I couldn't imagine that would be different for the USA or Australia. – Zaibis Jun 21 '17 at 06:10
  • @Zabis - the law specifically states that a person can be cited for breaking the littering law. When it comes to law, exact wording makes all the difference. A juristic person is usually considered so for issues regarding tort liability, not for individual actions. The littering ordinance is a fine for an offense, it is not a financial reparation for costs incurred. The fine is not reclamation of costs. Both of your arguments seem to depend on that definition, which is more a philosophical extrapolation on your part, IMO. Interesting issues to consider, though. Thanks! – PoloHoleSet Jun 21 '17 at 14:14

1 Answers1

18

Yes, NASA refused to pay a littering fine in 1979, BUT it seems that the Shire of Esperance (the municipality in question) never really expected NASA to pay.

First of all, NASA did know about the ticket, and it also clearly shows the ticket was given in jest.

According to It's Only Rocket Science (emphasize mine):

When the US space laboratory, Skylab fell to the Earth in 1979, it scattered debris not only across the southern Indian Ocean but also across sparsely populated areas in Western Australia. NASA was fined AU$400 for littering in Australia. This was not paid however, as the ticket was issued in "fun". J.M. Jones, the public affairs office for the Marshall Space flight Centre at the time, accompanied the Skylab investigation team on their trip to Australia. His personal report on the trip was published in the Johnson Space Centre Newsletter Roundup on August 10, 1979 (Vol. 19, No 16). He said:

Upon our arrival, the president of the shire (county) had arranged a mock ceremony in which an officer of the parks service ticketed NASA for littering, the evidence having been found all about the country-side.

LUCY ROGERS - It's ONLY Rocket Science: An Introduction in Plain English

From the local newspaper (emphasize mine):

Shire of Esperance executive manager of corporate services Darren Kennedy said the shire sometimes received emails asking if the story of the unpaid fine was true.

...

“I always write back with a standard email saying that the fine was written off in 1979 and usually I wouldn’t hear anymore."

...

Senior vice president of the Esperance Bay Historical Society and Esperance shire president at the time of the Skylab crash, Merv Andre, said the crash and fine gave the town worldwide publicity.

“The littering fine was given by the ranger as a bit of a lark1,” he said.

“NASA declined to pay it and after three months, the infringement was written off, but it hasn’t been forgotten!”

HANNAH SIEMER - Littering fine paid - The Esperance Express - 17 Apr, 2009

1Lark: something done for fun, especially something mischievous or daring; an amusing adventure or escapade.

Jordy
  • 3,846
  • 2
  • 24
  • 34
  • 4
    For those wondering, yes, Australians have a sense of humour. – Andrew Grimm Jun 15 '17 at 09:59
  • 6
    @AndrewGrimm *[Citation needed]* – Jordy Jun 15 '17 at 10:05
  • @Jordy - [Here's a citation](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/38687/29269) for you. Unfortunately it's a secondary source, but I can't be bothered to follow the links to the primary sources. – AndyT Jun 15 '17 at 11:01
  • 5
    @AndyT that's not a citation. [This](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35130/do-drop-bears-exist) is a citation. – Andrew Grimm Jun 15 '17 at 11:50
  • @Jordy - How could they not have a sense of humor?? https://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/drunk-pig-started-fight-cow-dies-car-accident/2044450/ – PoloHoleSet Jun 20 '17 at 19:20