Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 05 2016, @08:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the You-bought-insurance,-right? dept.

SpaceX will need to pay up for its destruction of an AMOS-6 satellite:

SpaceX may be on the hook to compensate Space Communication Ltd. (Spacecom) for the satellite that was destroyed during the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket — either with a free trip or $50 million, according to Reuters .

The construction, launch preparation and operation of the AMOS-6 satellite, which would have been used to "significantly expand the variety of communications services provided by Spacecom," reportedly cost the company more than $195 million. The officials from the company also noted that it could also collect upwards of $205 million from Israel Aircraft Industries, which built the satellite. SpaceX hasn't said what kind of insurance it purchased for the rocket, or what that insurance might pay for, Reuters reported. SpaceX wasn't immediately available for comment.

The failure of the launch may also kill a deal for Beijing Xinwei Technology Group to acquire Spacecom.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 05 2016, @01:02PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Monday September 05 2016, @01:02PM (#397778) Homepage Journal

    I thought that insurance was pretty standards in these cases [wikipedia.org], and it is. But it turns out that there may be a problem in this case: "Launch insurance provides coverage for the period from the intentional ignition of the engines until the satellite separates from the final stage of the launch vehicle, or it may continue until completion of the testing phase in orbit."

    Emphasis mine. In this case, the rocket exploded during a ground test, i.e., before "intentional ignition of the engines" to send it to orbit. So the typical insurance policy would not yet have been in effect.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Monday September 05 2016, @02:07PM

    by theluggage (1797) on Monday September 05 2016, @02:07PM (#397790)

    So the typical insurance policy would not yet have been in effect.

    ...so, are you saying that these 50 squillion dollar satellites aren't insured if the freight aircraft carrying them to the launch site crashes, the hangar burns down or the UPS guy comes when nobody is in and throws it over the fence?

    If something that expensive remains uninsured for more than 1 second of its existence then somebody in legal has screwed up. Oh, hang on, I just said that as if it were unlikely...

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday September 05 2016, @05:54PM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday September 05 2016, @05:54PM (#397858) Journal

    Looking at the pictures, the rocket exploded well above the engines, possibly in the satellite's own final orbit booster, which I suspect SpaceX had no part in building. The explosion occurred well above the refurbished rocket, just about where the second stage mates with the payload.

    Then of course there is the conspiracy theory about a drone (more fun and exciting to call it a UFO) flying near the rocket at the time. The Mirror [mirror.co.uk]. (Hey, its the Mirror, ok? Take it or leave it.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by TheB on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:11PM

      by TheB (1538) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:11PM (#398353)

      AMOS-6 was not using a "flight-proven" rocket.

      The first reuse of a Falcon 9 rocket was scheduled for the SES-10 mission. [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2) by weeds on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:33PM

    by weeds (611) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:33PM (#398301) Journal

    I think you added "to send it into orbit". From what I read, it was an intentional ignition of the engines (IANAL - and proud of it)