$26.6 million settlement for Columbia families

[docm]

Story....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA paid $26.6 million to the families of seven astronauts who died aboard space shuttle Columbia -- a settlement that has been kept secret for more than 21/2 years.<br /><br />The space agency recruited former FBI Director William Webster, also a former federal judge, to act as a mediator and adviser in negotiating the out-of-court settlements, according to documents released to the Orlando Sentinel through a federal Freedom of Information Act request.<br /><br />The newspaper's request yielded just seven pages of documents that leave many questions unanswered, including exactly when the settlements occurred.<br /><br />In an interview with the Sentinel, Webster, also a former CIA director, said he was bound by confidentiality and couldn't discuss details of the agreements, but defended the process as proper.<br /><br />"The members of the [survivors'] families wanted this to be a private matter," said Webster, a consulting partner in Washington with the international law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. "They were healing, and they were ready to discuss, properly, their rights. . . . Everyone felt it had a better chance of coming together without seeing their name in lights."<br /><br />In brief written responses to Sentinel questions Friday, NASA spokesman Allard Beutel said little about the settlements, citing family privacy. He said the money came from the agency's budget via a 2004 congressional appropriation.<br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I wonder how much the families actually get, after the lawyer cuts, and taxes?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[docm]

Congress could have waived Federal income taxes when they passed the special appropriation bill. Don't know what Florida did, if anything.<br /><br />I would presume that Florida's workers compensation rules would apply since that was Columbia's departure point. In Florida W/C attorney fees are set at 20% of the first $5,000, 15% of the second $5,000, 10% on the amount received over the first ten years and 5% on the balance. In certain cases the attorney fees are be added to the award. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lacuna]

I think it was a very classy thing for NASA to do. To keep this under the ropes and not cause the families any additional trouble (media, court) It's hard enough as it is to lose a family member knowingly, and even harder unexpectedly. <br /><br />

 

[spacester]

vishniac, I'm always interested in what NASA's critics think, even if I usually disagree. I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean. Is there a typo in there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

<font color="yellow"> I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean</font><br /><br />chuckle... I am glad that I am not the only one. I read it about a dozen times. I may be wrong but here is what I decided.<br /><br />The first part:<br /><br />NASA must have been scared to death ... to pay like that.<br /><br />Scared of what?<br /><br />that it didn't make anything to assess Columbia's situation<br /><br />It seems clearer when I substitute "cause" for "make". I think it implies that by settling with the crew's families, at whatever cost, NASA hoped to prevent a (more?) thorough accident investigation because it was scared of what the investigation would find. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"that it didn't make anything to assess Columbia's situation "<br /><br />I took this to mean they didn't have the means, or perhaps the desire to do an on-orbit inspection of the shuttle, after they knew there was a strike.<br /><br />The implication to me is that NASA might be afraid to be found negligent in either not constructing the means to do what they do now (on orbit examination), or for not using the means that they MAY have had at their disposal, i.e. orbiting assets such as spy sats that had been used in the past.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[askold]

Not that I begrudge them the money, but isn't being an astronaut an obviously dangerous job? Wouldn't any astronaut death be the result of something going wrong? If nothing goes wrong, they all come back OK.<br /><br />Why bother with a settlement - just write it in their contract. If they get killed, the family get $3M. Cut out the middleman.

 

[docm]

Some kind of benefit needs to be organized...I'm sure getting life insurance through a normal carrier would be impossible <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

You can insure for anything these days.<br /><br />My point is that every astronaut death will be considered a "wrongful death", so rather than waiting for the lawyers to arrive, just put the $3M payment in their employment contract along with a can't-sue clause.

 

[bobw]

Your interpretation seems more sensible than mine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

A general observation - not aimed in particular at anyone.<br /><br />In general, if you are going to make a strong statement of your opinion about something, then it would help to be around to defend it.<br /><br />Making a strong statement, then not discussing it for days leaves the impression of troll-like behavior - even if that was not your intent. (i.e. you couldn't get to the computer for a while).<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>