Live data from Hacker News

Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

reuters.com

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#51
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relationshi…

Indeed. From a SpaceNews article: "Orbcomm is relying on Hawthorne, Calif.-based SpaceX to launch all its second-generation satellites. Eight Orbcomm satellites are scheduled for launch aboard a Falcon 9 in mid-2013, with another 10 satellites scheduled for a 2014 Falcon 9 launch."

Besides polluting the relationship with SpaceX, raising a fuss would put their own plans into doubt. Orbcomm's stock price already fell 15% in the past week, I don't think they need more trouble:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ORBC+Interactive#symbol=o...;

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#52

Assuming that the insurance company actually pays out, this seems like a win for both SpaceX and OrbComm. SpaceX got a paying commercial customer, and had an opportunity to test out yet another part of the Falcon stack. OrbComm got a bit of testing time on their new communication platform at less than the cost of a full launch. If the insurance company is structured properly, this is a loss for them, but will average…

Well yes - it's frankly impressive enough that it's possible to get insurance to cover putting your satellite on one of SpaceX's rockets. Speaks well to the future of private space travel that there are institutions willing to take that bet, at a price commercial customers of SpaceX are evidently willing to pay.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#54
post #3

Wow, I hope everyone reads the article before commenting. It’s still amazingly successful. There was a 95% chance the satellite would have made it if they tried, but they were obligated not to try if there were less than a 99% chance of success. (The reduced chance was due to the loss of one of the 9 engines.) And, of course, the primary mission to the space station was fully successful (the engine glitch notwithstan…

I agree with your comment. I wanted you to know that I fatfingered the up vote... And gave you a downvote. I apologize.

Here's to many, many more private space successes!

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#55
Due to the engine shutdown, the Falcon 9 used slightly more fuel and oxygen to reach Dragon's intended 202 mile- (325-km) high orbit.

For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside.

the amount of liquid oxygen "was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 percent likelihood of completing the second burn..."

882 pounds (400 kg) of cargo aboard the Dragon capsule

The cynic in my wonders: would they have calculated a 99% likelihood if they hadn't sent the ice cream and had about .1% less cargo?

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#56
post #43
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they have a policy at all going forward. I'm actually very curious which insurance company wrote up a policy like this and what the structure looks like (not that we'll be able to get access to that info, but still..) There are very few insurance carriers on earth that write "specialized risk" like this -- it was most likely one of very few large multinational carriers or, more likely, a Lloyd's syndicate. The pro…

According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_insurance) there are about 20 companies who directly offer insurance. As you suggest, Lloyd's was first.

It turns out Orbcomm has had large losses before -- they collected $44M on a $50M claim a couple of years ago (http://www.spacenews.com/archive/archive09/orbcomm_0518.html)

Another tidbit from the last article: the form of deductible on such a policy.

"Orbcomm [...] said the insurance policy covering the six satellites includes a one-satellite deductible, a condition Orbcomm filled early this year when one of the spacecraft suffered a power failure."

A one-satellite deductible. Love it.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#57
After some further digging, it appears that insurance was at a low back in March. The article discusses the danger of a major failure, such as an Ariane 5 which could be covered at $750 million or a Proton which can carry $400 million worth of cargo. This $10 million loss shouldn't be too big of a deal for the space insurance world.

http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120302-falling-sa...

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#58
post #45
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I bet the insurance company will make the money back over time on subsequent successful launches (among other insured activities).

Yes, because guess what? I think the premiums just went up a bit!

A 15 Minute Call could save you 15 percent or more on ..... naaah doesnt work with the Satellite.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#59
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 $…

The problem is the size of the capital base you need to avoid gambler's ruin.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#60
post #48
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because guess what? I think the premiums just went up a bit!

Yes, the actuarial problem here is actually quite interesting, because one question it must address is the probability of failure. I wonder how much insight the insurers were given into safety margins on the spacecraft? [Edit: OK, a link on spacecraft actuarial methods: http://www.casact.org/pubs/forum/00fforum/00ff047.pdf ]

Haha, the 7% historic rate of satellites that failed to launch is not very far from my experience with the USPS' failed deliveries of postal packages to Australia.
Post reply on HN