Slashdot Mirror


Satellite Owner Says SpaceX Owes $50 Million Or Free Flight (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Israel's Space Communication Ltd said on Sunday it could seek $50 million or a free flight from Elon Musk's SpaceX after a Spacecom communications satellite was destroyed last week by an explosion at SpaceX's Florida launch site. Officials of the Israeli company said in a conference call with reporters Sunday that Spacecom also could collect $205 million from Israel Aerospace Industries, which built the AMOS-6 satellite. Spacecom has been hit hard in the aftermath of the Thursday explosion that destroyed the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and its payload. The Israeli company said the loss of the satellite would have a significant impact, with its equity expected to decline by $30 million to $123 million. Spacecom shares dropped 9 percent on Thursday, with the explosion occurring late in the last trading day of the week. Trading in the shares was suspended on Sunday morning, and the stock plummeted another 34 percent when trading resumed. In a conference call with reporters, Spacecom's general counsel Gil Lotan said it was too early to say if the company's planned merger with Beijing Xinwei Technology Group would proceed. Xinwei last month agreed to buy Spacecom for $285 million, saying the deal was contingent on the successful launch and operation of Spacecom's AMOS-6 satellite. The $200 million AMOS-6 satellite that perished in the explosion belonged to Facebook and was going to be used to beam internet to developing parts of the world.

6 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Spaceflight is risky by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Launching doubly so. OK this was a ground test of the engines. We still don't know what caused the explosion.

    And hey, wasn't the satellite INSURED??

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:Spaceflight is risky by kuzb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who in their right mind would insure a satellite of that cost for flight on an experimental vehicle? I can't see any insurance company betting on something that high risk.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Spaceflight is risky by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes the Falcon 9 an "experimental vehicle" any more than any other launch system?

      The Falcon 9 has had 27 successful launches and 2 failures in 6 years. It has had three major variations in that time (v1.0, v1.1 and FT).

      The Ariane 5 has had 83 successful launches and 2 failures in 20 years. It has had five major variations in that time (G, G+, GS, ECA and ES).

      The Atlas V has had 60 successful launches and no failures in 14 years. It has had nine major variations which have flown in that time.

      I'm not seeing anything which would put the Falcon 9 into a higher risk band than its contemporaries...

    3. Re:Spaceflight is risky by mlw4428 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I'm not seeing anything which would put the Falcon 9 into a higher risk band than its contemporaries...

      Really? Are you sure? I can see that, at its best, Falcon has had nearly 4 times fewer flights and matches the number of failures in a shorter lifespan than Ariane 5. And that's with the contemporaries introducing more variations. That's putting Falcon 9 at somewhere between 33% and 45% more failures than its two contemporaries. What metrics do you look at to determine risk? Everything I'm looking at says that Falcon 9 is a poor gamble, at best.

  2. Re: Don't put your one egg by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Always have an insurance

    Never have insurance ... unless it is something you can't afford to lose. The cost of insurance is (expected-loss + insurance-company-overhead + insurance-company-profit). If you self-insure, it is just the expected loss. So never insure anything you can afford to lose. It is a bad bet.

    Anyway, it is silly to conjecture about who is responsible for what cost. Here is the answer: Read the launch contract.

  3. Re: Don't put your one egg by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cost of insurance is (expected-loss + insurance-company-overhead + insurance-company-profit). If you self-insure, it is just the expected loss.

    Not true. The cost of insurance is (expected loss * probability of loss + insurance company profit / overhead). The cost of self insuring is either 0 or the expected loss. It only makes sense to self insure if you have a large number of things that you can average the risk over. It's also often a good idea to take a middle path. For example, the university that I work for gets a good deal on travel insurance, because the underwriters only have to cover very rare (and expensive) payouts. For smaller things, the university covers them itself out of overhead - these things are small and (averaged over all of the staff and students that qualify for the insurance) statistically easy to predict. They know roughly how much the payouts are going to be each year and budget for it. It wouldn't make sense to pass this onto an insurer, because we'd be paying them more than we're getting back. For particularly unusual events, we are covered, because then we average the risk not just among our own staff and students, but among the other tens or hundreds of thousands of people covered by the underwriter's policy. We will, on average, pay more than we get back, but in any given year we might get a lot more back than we pay and it's far easier to budget for that.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News