331–340 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is no way the insurance payout is anywhere near the actual cost of the satellite Why not?
Well, in this case it looks like it is $0 :-( https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/with_replies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get cheap consumer cameras now with pretty absurd zooms. The $600 Nikon P900 [1] has an 83x optical zoom lens, giving it the 35mm-equivalent focal length of 24-2000mm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SC_2yD6wKk . [1] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127274-REG/nikon_264...
How good is the photo quality? Is it close to entry-level DSLRs'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what happened - the rocket went out of control due to a software bug allowed by over-reliance on unit testing, and was quite properly deliberately destroyed. But yes, Cluster was run on the cheap, hence the use of the Ariane 5 test flight, and didn't have insurance.
"Over-reliance on unit testing"? I have a somewhat different read from the inquiry board report, which says it was a "systematic software design error." Yes, inadequate testing, and a belief the working code for Ariane 4 meant it was validated for Ariane 5 were certainly contributory, but I think it's unfair to single out an over-reliance on unit testing. The board argues that there was a bias towards believing the s…
Lots of things had to go wrong to cause the Ariane 5 failure - including bad handling of overflow, as you mention. But to my mind, the universal last line of defence against any kind of mistake is an integration test: put all of the parts of the system together, feed them real input, and verify that you get correct output. Arianespace did not do that.
Well, until they actually launched it. It was a test flight, right? It proved to be an essential and very effective test.
Here's good video of the test/failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s
No sign of a fire extinguishing or pad deluge system, such as NASA had for the shuttle. Maybe Space-X needs that. Fire crews can't approach until the fire burns itself out - too toxic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes years to build a satellite, the bus, and every component is purposely built each component and the satellite itself goes through months of testing and even if they could build one within 6 months all of the contracts would expire by then which will require Spacecom to open the bids again. All of the contracts were based on AMOS-6 being operational by a given date, AMOS-6 has been "under construction" for pro…
That's why you always build two.
They very seldom do, at least for non-constellation projects. Cheaper just to pay the insurance premiums for loss of hardware and loss of earnings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Updates... Elon tweeted: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon." [1] SpaceX tweeted: "At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX's Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle. The anomaly originated around…
Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. The Broken Window Fallacy hinges on the fact that the son breaks the window for a reason that doesn't further any other economic cause. That is, he didn't break the window for research, so nothing new was gained from it. Resources were merely shifted from the shopkeeper to the glazier. When it comes to innovation, however, failure is often the impetus to more efficient design. Not only was that $200m shift…
You can't say that all mistakes are worthwhile just because they reach us that we shouldn't make those mistakes... We already knew that. That wasn't research, it was a prelaunch test, and it failed.
Yes, it is probably lower ROI than that payload getting into space, but it does mean it's not a total loss and not simply a broken window fallacy.
It's more akin to if the window maker also tried to learn/test harder to break windows with each one she installed. Then, each broken window would be an experimental outcome instead of just a lost window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me point out in a nicer way what dogma1138 said below: Why would they want to do it in such a way when they could have stopped it just with formalities. I know Israel isn't right all the time but there is little reason to believe they are stupid.
Same reason they did a false flag bombing attempt on US and British targets in the 50s instead of simply asking for support?
-> This is not the 1950's
Enough with the conspiracy theories here. Unless you have some evidence and a strong thread of logic - please leave it be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.
That's tons of work. Lots of heart and soul went into that. I can still be sad for people even if we didn't lose people.
Yeah it sucks, but it could have been a lot worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This disaster may have bigger implications for Spacecom. They were in the middle of being acquired by Beijing Xinwei and the successful launch of Amos 6 was supposed to be a factor in closing the deal[1]. I have no idea what blowing up on the pad means for the merger. 1. http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom...
It's irrational to argue that you would pull out of a merger because a 3rd party's rocket failure delayed a launch. Contracts almost invariably include escape clauses to avoid liability for matters that are outside the control of the parties. If the launch was already scheduled at the time of the merger agreement (which seems likely, a rocket launch is not the sort of thing you arrange at the last minute) then Beijin…
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of things intertwined - moreover, M&A is not the most rational area of business.
Also - one side may 'cancel', huff and puff about it, then use it as a premise to come back to the table and negotiate a much better deal.