Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-space-spacex-idUSBRE89B18M20121012
23 comments
The primary mission was a success. The secondary mission was a failure. $10 million probably covers Orbcomm's launch costs.
SpaceX is awesome, but this isn't an unqualified win. There are groups out for SpaceX's head and they will try (unsuccessfully, I hope) to use this "engine incident" against them. SpaceX did not want this to happen at all.
SpaceX is awesome, but this isn't an unqualified win. There are groups out for SpaceX's head and they will try (unsuccessfully, I hope) to use this "engine incident" against them. SpaceX did not want this to happen at all.
They shure didn't want this to happen but they also demonstrated they were able to manage engine failure. That's worth something for the future.
What groups? I haven't heard of any opposition to SpaceX. Heck, NASA contracts with them.
http://news.yahoo.com/spacexs-elon-musk-bemoans-opposition-c... talks a bit about it some.
SpaceX is dramatically lowering the cost of space launch. They are eating the lunch of dinosaur space companies who are only too happy to apply FUD that SpaceX is being "too cheap." There's a lot of money on the table being consumed by people who just have to keep on doing what they are doing and don't like competition.
SpaceX is dramatically lowering the cost of space launch. They are eating the lunch of dinosaur space companies who are only too happy to apply FUD that SpaceX is being "too cheap." There's a lot of money on the table being consumed by people who just have to keep on doing what they are doing and don't like competition.
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!
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]
[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.
Thanks for that.
I don't suppose you have other links to catastrophic risk insurance papers that are relatively interesting. I've always been interested in the industry from a far.
I don't suppose you have other links to catastrophic risk insurance papers that are relatively interesting. I've always been interested in the industry from a far.
A 15 Minute Call could save you 15 percent or more on ..... naaah doesnt work with the Satellite.
"The only entity that got screwed was the insurance company,"
Unlikely they got screwed over. Insurance money doesn't come out of thin air. Insurance companies charge a premium for coverage and that premium usually goes up after a coverage event to make up for the increased risk. Insurance companies very rarely get screwed over.
Unlikely they got screwed over. Insurance money doesn't come out of thin air. Insurance companies charge a premium for coverage and that premium usually goes up after a coverage event to make up for the increased risk. Insurance companies very rarely get screwed over.
I like how they had a little party to celebrate getting ice cream, but I'm wondering, how much did that ice cream cost to bring to space? I think it's about $10,000 to launch a pound of something into space.
At earth parties, $10,000 gets you a lot of drugs/alcohol. At space parties, it gets you a tub of ice cream.
At earth parties, $10,000 gets you a lot of drugs/alcohol. At space parties, it gets you a tub of ice cream.
> At earth parties, $10,000 gets you a lot of drugs/alcohol. At space parties, it gets you a tub of ice cream.
[deleted]
It is perfectly clear that this is a story of safety margines adhered to in an admirably strict fashion; not allowing short term thinking rule over long term; and certainly not allowing marketing rule over engineering. This is how you move mountains.
It should; all of the material quotes in this article came from a SpaceX public relations agent and not from independent space analysts. Not exactly objective. The only quote from Orbicomm is practically a tautology.
In looking at this a bit further, it seems that the reliability of the Falcon 9 is not looking so good. It has only flown four times and suffered single engine shutdowns on two of them (the other: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/spacex-acknowledges-falcon-en...). See also: http://www.americaspace.org/?p=9044.
Simple probability then gives a failure rate of 3%. I have not attempted the Bayesian analysis.
Simple probability then gives a failure rate of 3%. I have not attempted the Bayesian analysis.
FWIW, they're going to be using a different engine soon.
[deleted](1)
Perfectly clear that PR best practices were adhered to in an admirably strict fashion - show beautiful pictures of apparent success on live video, bury the part where the satellite burns up until after hours on a Friday!
Apparently you know nothing about PR "best practices". No consultant worth their salt would have allowed SpaceX to handle the secondary mission failure they way they did. They made a series of classic and potentially disastrous mistakes. The best thing they could have done was address the issue head on with what information they had and then filled in further details as they were known.
To build credibility you have to admit failure. You can't just omit the bad news while focusing on the good news. You can't allow rumor and speculation to be your spokesperson. There's no way around the fact that an engine failure led to the failure of their secondary mission. Test platform or not, fully insured or not, an expensive piece of hardware became a shooting star. Someone didn't get what they paid for.
How it was handled was seriously amateurish. It made me cringe because I really want to see SpaceX (and Musk) succeed. Shit happens, but how you respond to that as an organization defines you for better or worse.
To build credibility you have to admit failure. You can't just omit the bad news while focusing on the good news. You can't allow rumor and speculation to be your spokesperson. There's no way around the fact that an engine failure led to the failure of their secondary mission. Test platform or not, fully insured or not, an expensive piece of hardware became a shooting star. Someone didn't get what they paid for.
How it was handled was seriously amateurish. It made me cringe because I really want to see SpaceX (and Musk) succeed. Shit happens, but how you respond to that as an organization defines you for better or worse.
Everyone in the industry who was paying attention knew that the satellite was having problems on Tuesday. Anyone who wanted to know about it did.
The satellite burned up when it burned up. It was very probable that it was going to have a short life, but no one really knew how short until re-entry was imminent.
The satellite burned up when it burned up. It was very probable that it was going to have a short life, but no one really knew how short until re-entry was imminent.
On the other hand it doesn't explain why they didn't look at another orbit that they did have enough fuel for. Was this a decision that had to be made immediately?
A group of communications satellites have to be deployed in a synchronized way, to continuously cover the area they target. Changing the orbit of this satellite would mean changing the orbits of the other 16 satellites as well. Also I'm pretty sure you have to license a particular orbit ahead of time instead of just picking whatever is convenient at the moment.
Were they putting this into the exact same orbit as the others? I thought it was mostly a test sat.
Who do you license orbits from?
Who do you license orbits from?
I googled a little, and apparently the radiocommunication satellites are regulated by ITU: http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/whatwedo.aspx .
Issac Newton got quite bored after becoming immortal and now has a little booth set up at the patent office. Don't take the piss out of his wig, otherwise you will get nowhere with him.
I strongly suspect it was so that they could collect the maximum amount from insurance as quickly as possible. No other explanation makes as much sense.
They didn't fire at all because there was a risk that they might have hit the ISS. SpaceX was operating under NASA's rules and NASA had a safety window where the Falcon 9 could/couldn't fire its second stage.
The risk was almost certainly overstated, but NASA is understandably paranoid about things hitting the ISS.
The risk was almost certainly overstated, but NASA is understandably paranoid about things hitting the ISS.
[deleted]
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 notwithstanding).
It wasn't a 95%/99% of the satellite making it; those were the chances that there wouldn't be an incident with the ISS if the upper stage activated.
The Falcon 9 ended up in a slightly different position/velocity than was expected, and the primary mission (deliver to the ISS and don't dare run anything into it) took complete priority over the secondary mission of launching the other satellite into a high orbit.
The Falcon 9 ended up in a slightly different position/velocity than was expected, and the primary mission (deliver to the ISS and don't dare run anything into it) took complete priority over the secondary mission of launching the other satellite into a high orbit.
Article says the opposite:
if there was not at least a 99 percent chance that the rocket had enough fuel to complete the burn
if there was not at least a 99 percent chance that the rocket had enough fuel to complete the burn
That simply doesn't make sense. The OrbComm satellite was almost sure to burn up if they didn't launch it from a higher orbit. If the only risk was to the satellite, then go high or go home.
The problem was a (very small, almost surely overstated, but there nonetheless) risk to the ISS. From Orbcomm's press release: "the rocket did not comply with a preplanned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn."
The problem was a (very small, almost surely overstated, but there nonetheless) risk to the ISS. From Orbcomm's press release: "the rocket did not comply with a preplanned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn."
It's unclear to me what is the risk to ISS. Secondary payload was on the much lower orbit, and even if it was on the same orbital plane, they could just slightly change orbit plane, and try to raise the obit with any chance of success entirely safe for ISS.
It's probably mostly a theoretical risk. On the other hand, I recall a flight to Mir that ended up slamming into the station. And NASA doesn't have any reason to accept a risk that doesn't benefit its operations.
There were no flights to Mir that "slammed into the station". The collision on Mir was due to an accident during testing of a new manual docking system for the Progress spacecraft. However, prior to the test the Progress had already successfully docked with the station, the test involved undocking and then switching to a new docking system for the test.
> And NASA doesn't have any reason to accept a risk that doesn't benefit its operations.
Goodwill in the space community and helping to defray costs of future launches by making commercial launches more successful (and thus less expensive, if only for insurance purposes) seem like things that benefit their operations. Perhaps this is a naive opinion, though.
Goodwill in the space community and helping to defray costs of future launches by making commercial launches more successful (and thus less expensive, if only for insurance purposes) seem like things that benefit their operations. Perhaps this is a naive opinion, though.
I agree, and I think NASA does too. They're just really conservative about the safety of the ISS (understandably so).
In risk terms, the satellite that was ditched is worth absolutely nothing compared to the ISS. The ISS is the single most important thing humans have in space at the moment.
Purely on the basis that the new trajectory can't be gone over with a pin, even if all the maths comes out saying that everything is lovely, you do not refire an ISS delivery rocket that is not where you expected it to be, especially one that has already sustained damage, just to test a new robot.
Purely on the basis that the new trajectory can't be gone over with a pin, even if all the maths comes out saying that everything is lovely, you do not refire an ISS delivery rocket that is not where you expected it to be, especially one that has already sustained damage, just to test a new robot.
And that was why they accepted 99% instead of 99.9% or 99.99%.
Plane changes are one of the most expensive operations in an orbit iirc.
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!
Here's to many, many more private space successes!
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 out over time.
Compare with the age of sail, where a mission was considered successful if one the ships actually returned. Even with 75% of the crew dead and 25% toothless and malnourished from scurvy and other ailments.
Compare with the age of sail, where a mission was considered successful if one the ships actually returned. Even with 75% of the crew dead and 25% toothless and malnourished from scurvy and other ailments.
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.
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.
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.
Failure is a part of every human activity worth pursuing. What we do when we fail is what defines us. Looking at the big picture, this mission was nothing but a success. Unless I am wrong, this is the first privately built rocket to deliver cargo to the Space Station. Right? And they achieved this while loosing one engine. High five!
It sounds like everyone involved with the Satellite portion of the mission knew full-well what the risks were and that they had no priority over the main mission. Insurance covered it. Done deal. All is well.
SpaceX can only get better from here. Kudos.
It sounds like everyone involved with the Satellite portion of the mission knew full-well what the risks were and that they had no priority over the main mission. Insurance covered it. Done deal. All is well.
SpaceX can only get better from here. Kudos.
Apparently SpaceX weren't the only ones with engine problems this week. The Delta 4 launch had some anomalies as well. Hard engineering is hard.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/satellite-investig...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/satellite-investig...
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...
http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120302-falling-sa...
Shame. It doesn't sound like Orbcomm is too disappointed though. They were aware of the risks, and they did get to test some of the systems.
Actually, sounds like Orbcomm got a heck of a deal. They get insurance money and in addition to getting a few tests off on the prototype.
Hah. Good point. A couple days of free testing in space isn't a bad deal at all.
Did the satellite self-destruct or something? The article seems to imply the rocket and payload reached its first goal orbit of 202 miles (to deliver another separate payload to the ISS).
At that altitude, while short of the 466 miles desired, it still should have taken months or years for the orbit to decay and re-enter the atmosphere!
At that altitude, while short of the 466 miles desired, it still should have taken months or years for the orbit to decay and re-enter the atmosphere!
Altitude alone isn't enough for orbit - it also needs sufficient velocity in the right direction, which presumably it didn't have.
A stationary object placed 466 miles above the earth would just fall down.
A stationary object placed 466 miles above the earth would just fall down.
The primary objective was to reach the ISS, which it did successfully. From there, it was to launch the satellite. From the article:
> To ensure the station's safety, the agreement with NASA prohibited Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX as the privately-held California-based company is known, from restarting the rocket's second stage - needed to deliver Orbcomm's satellite to its proper orbit - if there was not at least a 99 percent chance that the rocket had enough fuel to complete the burn, said SpaceX spokeswoman Katherine Nelson.
Because there was less than a 99% chance of success, SpaceX followed procedures and did not attempt to launch the satellite.
> To ensure the station's safety, the agreement with NASA prohibited Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX as the privately-held California-based company is known, from restarting the rocket's second stage - needed to deliver Orbcomm's satellite to its proper orbit - if there was not at least a 99 percent chance that the rocket had enough fuel to complete the burn, said SpaceX spokeswoman Katherine Nelson.
Because there was less than a 99% chance of success, SpaceX followed procedures and did not attempt to launch the satellite.
The launch would be to an orbit that would decay in a short-ish time (perhaps fairly elliptical?), since SpaceX wouldn't want to leave the second stage up there long term as yet another large piece of space debris.
Talking from the knowledge of a hobbyist here though, rather than an expert on such matters, so probably wrong on some counts.
Talking from the knowledge of a hobbyist here though, rather than an expert on such matters, so probably wrong on some counts.
[deleted]
Is there an explanation somewhere (preferably with a diagram) of how this launch was supposed to work? I'm not sure where the satellite was attached, and how the upper stage was supposed to boost it - was it going to drop the dragon off at one orbit and then continue higher and release the satellite?
Unusually clear and detailed article from Reuters. Kudos to Ms. Klotz.
That's what space launch insurance is for I guess.
Can someone clarify this for me? Why does the contract with NASA forbid them to restart the engine unless they have a 99% chance of completing a second burn?
Is the problem here that if you start a second burn and have to end it prematurely, you could end up in an orbit intersecting the ISS?
Is the problem here that if you start a second burn and have to end it prematurely, you could end up in an orbit intersecting the ISS?
As I understand it, that's exactly what it is.
Note to self: Don't start a space mission insurance company.
If you don't have enough capital to take a few hits, don't start any kind of insurance company. If you do have the money, though, it should be the same basic principle as any other insurance company: calculate the risk as best you can, and charge accordingly so that the expected value of your profit is as positive as the market will bear.
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?
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?
Falcon 9: 333,450 kg
Dragon: 4,200 kg
Cargo: 905 kg
Ice cream: <5 kg, I'm guessing
Skipping the ice cream would've reduced their total mass by <0.001% or so, at least at launchtime.
Dragon: 4,200 kg
Cargo: 905 kg
Ice cream: <5 kg, I'm guessing
Skipping the ice cream would've reduced their total mass by <0.001% or so, at least at launchtime.
Appreciate the response, and think you're probably right. I'd be interested in better numbers, though. It's not the mass of the ice cream that't the problem, but the fuel necessary to get that mass to orbit. I think that's about 10x. And it's the percentage of weight at altitude that matters, since that's where the maneuvering was being done, which brings the weight down by about 90%. That's why I was guessing it was a .1% increase, but don't know for sure.
so the ice cream bit at the end makes it all ok?
ice cream!
In the words of the great philosopher, Homer-- "Doh!",
I never understood why this company couldn't make do with the orbit spacex left it in?
No, orbit isn't orbit. Among many other considerations, the key problem here was that the initial orbit was low enough for atmospheric drag to be a factor, thus why it fell back to Earth after just a few days.
And specifically, being underpowered, the orbit was probably highly elliptical.
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.
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.
> "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.
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.
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...;
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...;
I'm sure the insurance company was aware of this as well, and charged accordingly.
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.
A orbit raising maneuver was always necessary to get the satellite to its target. Relevant sections:
> "Orbcomm had planned on reaching an altitude of 466 miles above Earth..."
> "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. Over the next 2.5 days, Dragon flew itself to the station's orbit 250 miles above Earth. It reached the $100 billion outpost, a project of 15 countries, on Wednesday."
Initial Dragon Orbit: 202 miles above Earth
ISS: 250 miles above Earth
Desired Satellite Location: 466 miles above Earth
There was only a 95% chance of the rocket reaching the location 466 miles above Earth (due to the reduced fuel reserves), so they didn't perform the burn, because NASA's contract with them forbade it (had to be >=99% chance of success).
> "Orbcomm had planned on reaching an altitude of 466 miles above Earth..."
> "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. Over the next 2.5 days, Dragon flew itself to the station's orbit 250 miles above Earth. It reached the $100 billion outpost, a project of 15 countries, on Wednesday."
Initial Dragon Orbit: 202 miles above Earth
ISS: 250 miles above Earth
Desired Satellite Location: 466 miles above Earth
There was only a 95% chance of the rocket reaching the location 466 miles above Earth (due to the reduced fuel reserves), so they didn't perform the burn, because NASA's contract with them forbade it (had to be >=99% chance of success).
Right. They were hoping the F9 upper stage would do that orbit raising for them (the non-risky version). The risky part was trying to do an orbit raising with the satellite's onboard fuel, which was the only option after the F9 lost an engine.
The expected outcome (F9 upper stage doing the raising) was considered non-risky, and I'm sure that's the premise the insurance company was operating under when they agreed to insure the satellite.
The expected outcome (F9 upper stage doing the raising) was considered non-risky, and I'm sure that's the premise the insurance company was operating under when they agreed to insure the satellite.
No, the risky part was trying to raise the orbit using the F9 upper stage after it had burned more fuel than expected due to the failed engine.
Quoth the article:
> Falcon 9 had enough kerosene fuel left over to relight the engine, but the amount of liquid oxygen "was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 percent likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart,"
I doubt many satellites have enough maneuvering fuel on-board to raise their orbit like that.
Quoth the article:
> Falcon 9 had enough kerosene fuel left over to relight the engine, but the amount of liquid oxygen "was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 percent likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart,"
I doubt many satellites have enough maneuvering fuel on-board to raise their orbit like that.
You're right. I remember them discussing attempting to raise the orbit with onboard fuel, but I doubt that was possible.
My point was more that, prior to the engine failure, raising the orbit with the second stage was considered non-risky. You're correct that after the failure, raising the orbit with the second stage was risky.
My point was more that, prior to the engine failure, raising the orbit with the second stage was considered non-risky. You're correct that after the failure, raising the orbit with the second stage was risky.
From what I recall, the Orbcomm satellite was supposed to be left in a 350km x 750km orbit by the Falcon 9, and would then use its own reserves to achieve a basically circular orbit, 750km x 750km.
Well, if you could assume that everything will work as expected, you wouldn't need insurance!
The Insurance probably cost $2-5million.
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. ;)
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. ;)
The problem is the size of the capital base you need to avoid gambler's ruin.
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.
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 problem is that these very same carriers are, somewhat ironically, exceedingly risk-averse. They pat themselves on the backs and tell each other how smart they are when their bets go well ("Ha! We got $2M in premium for that satellite launch and didn't have to pay out a penny") and they are very quick to play Monday Morning Quarterback when their bets go wrong, especially when it's the first launch ("Johnson, you are a foolish underwriter. How could you write that risk? Get off the risk immediately.")
As frustrating as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they either cancelled the policy (if the policy covered multiple launches) or non-renewed after this failure and claim the risk profile changed or something like that.
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 problem is that these very same carriers are, somewhat ironically, exceedingly risk-averse. They pat themselves on the backs and tell each other how smart they are when their bets go well ("Ha! We got $2M in premium for that satellite launch and didn't have to pay out a penny") and they are very quick to play Monday Morning Quarterback when their bets go wrong, especially when it's the first launch ("Johnson, you are a foolish underwriter. How could you write that risk? Get off the risk immediately.")
As frustrating as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they either cancelled the policy (if the policy covered multiple launches) or non-renewed after this failure and claim the risk profile changed or something like that.
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.
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.
Maybe. The launch manifest lists "ORBCOMM - Multiple Flights" between 2012 and 2014. Their insurance will probably go down if their sats are the primary payload.
I think you will find that very few people in this world understand risk better than insurance companies. They were not victimized here.
Just awesome.
The mission was a success. The satellite maker's loss was covered with insurance money, the ISS stays up in the sky, engine-out capability proven, subsequent launch contracts remain in place from both NASA/the satellite maker - and the ISS astronauts get home-made chocolate ice cream! Win-win-win.
The only entity that got screwed was the insurance company, but that was a risk they were willing to take and were duly paid for doing so.