SPAB has been lying all these years in numerous sec documents and press releases about how they were going to pursue the settlement. What a joke! If they were getting contracts from NASA and felt that dropping the suit may get them more I could see it, but they're not. I guess they don't need the money.Another disturbing fact is the quote in the article that mentions focusing their limited resources on other projects, that sounds reassuring. At this point I am inclined to say that mi2also I've ridiculed you in the past but it appears that your grim assessment of this company is correct.
"Columbia and VSE changed everything, no more flying the Shuttle for anything but ISS construction which favors the MPLM."
That is not true. The ISS construction and logitic servicing was always base on the MPLM. There never was a future in it for spab. spab was only able to take advantage of the early construction missions before the MPLM was ready nor was the ISS ready to take on and delays in the launch of the servcice module. STS-116 and 118 are unique, in that there was ISS hardware that could fit in the payload bay with a module.
Just as the current manifest has MPLM's servicing the ISS in the out years, so did the pre Columbia manifest.
God you entertain me,....."do research",....you are such an arrogant hack,....I do have to point out though that you might want to do a little research yourself or have your super legal staff (the ones that advise you about insider trading) and find out what "negligent homicide (not homocide)" is,....that is a totally different action than the one brought by spacehab,....and Nasa could have settled without admitting any culpability that would have been open for discovery by an aggrieved party such as an astronaut family,.....this tort claim was a wee bit more complex than you wish to make it sound it did have merit,....now as to it's advisability?,...perhaps it was a mistake,....but it was a mistake backed by the board and reversing course showed nothing but weakness and no stomach for the legal arena,....if you actually believe that dropping the suit will lead to more JSC business then you are just too naive to live in the modern world
Unless we now get visible business out of JSC connected to the Shuttle the dropping of the court cases will be seen as a mistake and a potential big loss of shareholder asset. Anyway it's done now and this is the situation we now find ourselves in and all we can do now is hope that Pickens and you know what you are doing with this company.
Yer kiddin me right? The board stayed the same? They got rid of J.R. Thompson who added no value being from a competitor company (think about that one for a while), and got rid of another board member to put on a rep from the debt holder that is much more motiviated to generate a return on investment than you as a common stock holder.
What other research missions were on the drawing board before Columbia? None, nada, zip. ISS was going to take over the whole microgravity research marketspace that SH had, and this began with the deployment of the destiny module. If the Shuttle had not gone down the Destiny and Columbus (ESA) and Kibo modules would have taken over ALL of the microgravity biz from SH modules. Dan Goldin drove the first spike into SH when he signed the barter deal that brought in the MPLM's. SH got the shaft then as Goldin would not have had to write checks to SH any more. The LCC was going to be superseded by the MSFC build Lightweight MPESS Carrier (LMC) that had its first flight not long before Columbia.
What was SH doing about these threats? Nada, zip. They bet the farm on COTS and then were astonished at not winning when everyone in the biz knew that ESMD would NEVER sign off on using an Atlas V as the launch vehicle to get anywhere near station. The old guard at SH simply were out of their league and everyone but them knew it.
What good faith statements? That is what research is for, to go behind those statements. To even think that SPAB could have won a tort claim is not feasible as you would want NASA to admit or a court to determine that the agency was active in a case of negligent homocide of the crew? Get real. NASA would have fought that down to their last dime.
I am saying that the situation now is best for the company as now they can actually sit in a meeting with JSC and talk about positive things, maybe bring on consultants who used to work for the agency who otherwise would tell them no, and then diversify the business as with the Astrotech win (again read the 10Q) and other space business directions.
Always remember what Ronald Reagan said about trust. "Trust, but verify". You did not do that and that is not the current or even former management's problem.
I think that SPAB will be a much stronger company in a year but has to go through wrenching change to get there. You want to bail in the second inning of the new game.
My point all along has been that spab was never more than managers that had other contractors do the work for them. They had two teams working for them. Astrium for the ICC and Boeing for the module. At no time did spab have "real" inhouse engineering talent. They sold the ICC back to Astrium, which means Astrium will be the "operator" of the ICC.
spab let go of Boeing for the modules, once they were configured for the STS-116 flight. Since no one from Boeing went to spab from Huntsville, all the expertise with stowage stayed with Boeing. For the 2 remaining module flights, spab hasn't packed any stowage (they recieved all the bags prepacked) and the stowed configuration of the bags has be pre determined. There is little of any stowage engineering to be done.
because of lack of real work and the loss of Boeing, spab has no stowage expertise to apply to other programs. The subcontract with Spacex is a sham, and considering the work
Spacex has ahead, actual stowage accomodations will be an afterthought.
The Shuttle was also used for other research missions and payload deployment/maintenance (Hubble etc) so it's quite a stretch to say it was just used for ISS. They previous management did think about diversifying further so again you are stretching the truth, they reached the COTS final with Apex but lost to the RLVs. $30m was only the bare minumum net they would have got from the Contract Claim alone but the whole amount they could have possibly got through the Tort negligence would have been over double that. The money would have either trebled/quadrupled the price converting the debt into equity or they could have paid off the debt direct and you are just being facetious with your check remark.
In fact you have only been insulting to those of us who invested in this company in good faith based on their statements which do not seem to have been able to survive a change of CEO even though the Board has stayed more or less the same. It's a question of trust and veracity and this company and board has shown that they have very little. Just because these old policies have never been to your liking is not the point here, it is what we have chosen to invest for and many of us do not appreciate the inability of the company to match its words with deeds. I would have said goodbye to this company years ago if I knew this would be how they would behave and it's easy for you to say too bad, tough luck as its not your money you have lost or tied up.
Even before Columbia the Shuttle was only being used for ISS construction. STS 107 was forced on the agency, at least partially at the behest of Spacehab who lobbyed long and hard for that mission. NASA did not want to fly 107 at all and where on the STS manifest were these mythical flights to other inclinations or for other purposes of which you speak? STS = ISS support for the last several years.
Even now, the only work that SH has is ISS related and this would have continued. Anyone who thought that STS would have continued to fly till 2020 was betting on a very skinny and underfed horse. The company never even thought about diversifying beyond that one pony and the old management was just fat dumb and happy, something that no company should ever be.
The Enterprise module was a joke as no one was going to pay for a multimedia studio on orbit, just ask Dreamtime.
Face it, as an investor, to bet on that one slim outcome, on a mangement team that could not see beyond its sole customer, was not what any seasoned investor would do. What, they were going to write you a check as an investor for part of that money? That potential $30M windfall ended up costing them far more than that, and the new management made the hard decision on what was best for the company's future. If you can't see that then you need to invest somewhere else.