Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch • Hacker News Board

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#11

Post by tarice » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:40 PM UTC

ramidarigaz wrote: post #7

tarice wrote: post #6

So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall into the atmosphere? What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk? Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's External Tank all these years.

They didn't expect it to fall. They were aware that their satellite was a secondary payload and would be abandoned if need be. I don't think anyone expected the Falcon 9 to lose an engine.

From the article:

> "Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative," Nelson wrote. "They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise."

High risk, to me, says that there was a pretty good chance it was gonna fall.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#12

Post by waterlesscloud » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:40 PM UTC

tarice wrote: post #6

So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall into the atmosphere? What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk? Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's External Tank all these years.

Without knowledge of their premiums, it's difficult to judge what sort of deal it was.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#13

Post by sjg007 » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:42 PM UTC

ramidarigaz wrote: post #7

tarice wrote: post #6

So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall into the atmosphere? What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk? Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's External Tank all these years.

They didn't expect it to fall. They were aware that their satellite was a secondary payload and would be abandoned if need be. I don't think anyone expected the Falcon 9 to lose an engine.

The Insurance probably cost $2-5million.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#14

Post by ramidarigaz » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:43 PM UTC

tarice wrote: post #11

ramidarigaz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't expect it to fall. They were aware that their satellite was a secondary payload and would be abandoned if need be. I don't think anyone expected the Falcon 9 to lose an engine.

From the article: > "Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative," Nelson wrote. "They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise." High risk, to me, says that th…

The beginning being as soon as they knew their satellite had been deposited well below the desired altitude. If the F9 engine hadn't failed, they wouldn't have needed to do an orbit raising maneuver at all and there would have been no risk of the satellite deorbiting.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#15

Post by natep » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:43 PM UTC

To be sure, this is not a good outcome, but improper orbit insertion is a serious risk on every rocket launch, whether or not it's SpaceX and whether or not you're the primary payload. I'm glad to see that all parties involved realized this and Orbcomm planned accordingly. It would make little sense to accept the increased risk that a secondary payload status entails and to not be prepared for the consequences.

And SpaceX behaved just as any other launch vehicle provider would in that situation. They gave their best effort to the secondary payload, but in the end, sacrificed it in order to achieve their primary mission.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#16

Post by NDizzle » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

Note to self: Don't start a space mission insurance company.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#17

Post by sirclueless » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

tarice wrote: post #11

ramidarigaz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't expect it to fall. They were aware that their satellite was a secondary payload and would be abandoned if need be. I don't think anyone expected the Falcon 9 to lose an engine.

From the article: > "Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative," Nelson wrote. "They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise." High risk, to me, says that th…

That's pretty clearly a little doublespeak going on. Of course it's shitty that the secondary mission didn't happen, but neither Orbcomm nor SpaceX wants this to go down in the press as a failure, so the party line is "Well, it was a big risk, and we accepted it." There's not much else Orbcomm could say unless they wanted to lambaste SpaceX as a scapegoat, which they don't want to do because of an ongoing relationship.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#18

Post by tarice » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:45 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #12

tarice wrote: post #6

So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall into the atmosphere? What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk? Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's External Tank all these years.

Without knowledge of their premiums, it's difficult to judge what sort of deal it was.

If the mission had succeeded, they would've been able to test it a little longer and then received 0 money back. Early test termination yields $10 mil.

Either way they're still paying the premiums. I have a feeling, though, that the premiums will be going up after this.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#19

Post by mikeash » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:46 PM UTC

tarice wrote: post #11

ramidarigaz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't expect it to fall. They were aware that their satellite was a secondary payload and would be abandoned if need be. I don't think anyone expected the Falcon 9 to lose an engine.

From the article: > "Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative," Nelson wrote. "They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise." High risk, to me, says that th…

I'm sure the insurance company was aware of this as well, and charged accordingly.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#20

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 11:49 PM UTC

tarice wrote: post #6

So, essentially, a company sends a satellite into space, tests it a lot, and then charges an insurance company $10 million because they expected it to fall into the atmosphere? What insurance company lets a company take out a plan with that kind of risk? Seems like NASA should've been getting insurance plans for the shuttle's External Tank all these years.

I'm not sure what the estimated failure rate for the falcon 9 rockets were before the most recent launch, but let's assume it was 1 in 27.

So: The insurance company looks at the deal and sees that they have a 1 in 27 chance of having to pay out. Then they ask Orbcomm to pay $10,000,000/27 + profit. Statistically, the insurance company will always win if they make enough deals.

Oh, and I am sure that if NASA offered $1B to anyone who would insure the 50 million tank, there would be an army of takers. ;)