SpaceX (general discussion)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-com-xinwei-group-idUSKCN11A0EF

Spacecom said it was entitled to a full refund for Amos-6 from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), the satellite's manufacturer, as well as interest of LIBOR plus 4 percent.

It will also receive $50 million in compensation from SpaceX, or it can choose to use SpaceX for a future launch at no extra cost.

Spacecom will also get back money it paid to insure the Amos-6 satellite in orbit. It added that once it receives its compensation, it will be able to pay off bondholders $232 million they are owed.
Click to expand...
 
From this, I get the impression that IAI still technically owned the satellite and that they are the ones insuring it before launch.
 
TomS said:
From this, I get the impression that IAI still technically owned the satellite and that they are the ones insuring it before launch.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
 
SpaceX update there Statement on Failure

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

- At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test.
At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank.
Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries.

To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency.
These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA,
the United States Air Force and other industry experts.
We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds.
Click to expand...

In earlier Tweet Musk had to say (extract)
...This seems instant from a human perspective, but it really a fast fire, not an explosion...
Click to expand...

http://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-says-it-wasnt-an-explosion-that-took-out-spac-1786112682
 
So what happens to the launch pad now that it is damaged, will SpaceX have to pay NASA for the damage caused to the launch pad or will they have to come to another agreement?
 
SpaceX is required to carry insurance against damage to the facilities.
 
A lot of the reporting on this seems to be misunderstanding what Spacecom has said. There are reports that Spacecom "demands" money from SpaceX or even "threatens to sue" SpaceX. But one commentator over on Ars Technica found the initial financial statement by Spacecom about the incident (in Hebrew) and it seems much more like a simple statement to investors of what the financial impact will be:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/spacex-explosion-amos-6-satellite-owner-demands-50-million-dollars/?comments=1&post=31827623

1) Based on the contract between Spacecom and IAI, Spacecom is entitled to compensation fro the cost of the satellite, plus interest and some other fees, and they have to give some money back to the Israeli government for helping to finance the purchase in the first place.

2) Launch insurance was arranged but because they never reached launch, that insurance didn't come into effect and the full premium is to be refunded, again in accordance with the contracts.

3) Based on their agreement with SpaceX, Spacecom is entitled to the return of the launch fee ($50 million) or another launch under the same contract terms. No demand or threat, just "how it is."

So all of this is in line with their contracts, not some extraordinary compensation Spacecom is demanding.

Now, they're really in trouble, financially -- their money coming in after the explosion is just about exactly equal to the amount they owe their bond holders, and those bonds are coming due now, due to the total loss of the satellite.
 
TomS said:
A lot of the reporting on this seems to be misunderstanding what Spacecom has said. There are reports that Spacecom "demands" money from SpaceX or even "threatens to sue" SpaceX. But one commentator over on Ars Technica found the initial financial statement by Spacecom about the incident (in Hebrew) and it seems much more like a simple statement to investors of what the financial impact will be:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/spacex-explosion-amos-6-satellite-owner-demands-50-million-dollars/?comments=1&post=31827623

1) Based on the contract between Spacecom and IAI, Spacecom is entitled to compensation fro the cost of the satellite, plus interest and some other fees, and they have to give some money back to the Israeli government for helping to finance the purchase in the first place.

2) Launch insurance was arranged but because they never reached launch, that insurance didn't come into effect and the full premium is to be refunded, again in accordance with the contracts.

3) Based on their agreement with SpaceX, Spacecom is entitled to the return of the launch fee ($50 million) or another launch under the same contract terms. No demand or threat, just "how it is."

So all of this is in line with their contracts, not some extraordinary compensation Spacecom is demanding.

Now, they're really in trouble, financially -- their money coming in after the explosion is just about exactly equal to the amount they owe their bond holders, and those bonds are coming due now, due to the total loss of the satellite.
Click to expand...

That is news to me. :eek:
 
I'm not totally sure about the bond issue. It may be that this was a bond issued specifically to pay for the spacecraft, in which case it makes sense that the bond payout would roughly match the insurance recovery for the loss.

There are reports now that they are not insured for the loss of revenue in the event of a spacecraft loss, which seems likely; such insurance would be hard to price and probably quite expensive. But it's going to have quite an impact on their potential sale, which was based on the revenue projections with AMOS-6 in service.
 
That doesn't seem to be a permanent link. Likely to be outdated soon.
 
Hobbes said:
That doesn't seem to be a permanent link. Likely to be outdated soon.
Click to expand...

I plan on updating the link if/when the piece gets it's own article.
 
current state on accident
and picture of leftover what was once a launch pad
http://www.universetoday.com/130814/spacex-hopes-falcon-9-return-flight-november-shotwell/
 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-competitors-20160914-snap-story.html
 
Video analyst by "Thunder 001"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdQPaABFK0

Intersting
there a squeaking sound follow by loud "pop" sound around 5 second before Falcon 9 turn into Molotov cocktail

Thunder 001 believe that Lox lower tank dome in Second stage rupture (the Pops sound) under Super cold LOX (the squeaking sound)
i guess do overpressure, either a Helium tank failed again or overpressure by feeding too much Super cold LOX from fueling system.

Last one is hard to prove because the feeding system were heavy damage during the fire.
 
flanker said:
sferrin said:
flanker said:
Turns out MCT can go well beyond Mars, so will need a new name…
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/776939304140414976

Jesus christ Elon.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?
Click to expand...

As if colonizing Mars wasnt enough. ;)
Click to expand...

wen you build a rocket in size of NOVA post saturn V proposals (payload 1 million Lb and launch mass of 25 million Lb )
you can transport allot of stuff anywhere in solar system...
 
Michel Van said:
Video analyst by "Thunder 001"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdQPaABFK0

Intersting
there a squeaking sound follow by loud "pop" sound around 5 second before Falcon 9 turn into Molotov cocktail

Thunder 001 believe that Lox lower tank dome in Second stage rupture (the Pops sound) under Super cold LOX (the squeaking sound)
i guess do overpressure, either a Helium tank failed again or overpressure by feeding too much Super cold LOX from fueling system.

Last one is hard to prove because the feeding system were heavy damage during the fire.
Click to expand...

This whole thing about the explosion just gets stranger and stranger, but I am rapidly coming to the same conclusion myself and that is before the official findings are released from the investigation.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/elon-musk-to-outline-his-plans-for-mars
 
They have figured it out, those pesky COPV's;

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
 
flanker said:
They have figured it out, those pesky COPV's;

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
Click to expand...

Funny, I'd never heard the acronym "COPV" before and I'm actually participating in the design of one at work. :-[ :eek:
 
I should precise; as they state the cause is the helium system. So neither we or they know it was COPV's exactly. However, right before the SpaceX's update was posted this rumor by former employee was posted which talks about COPV's in specific;

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/545dju/unconfirmed_rumors_that_spacex_found_the_issue/

Also note this update in the SpaceX post;

[Updated 09/24: At this time, the cause of the potential breach remains unknown.]
Click to expand...
 
The thing that surprises me about the tank (if that's what it is) is that they're not exactly super complicated, or unknown technology.
 
On Reddit it was suggested or rumoured that some harmonic resonance from the LOX flow may have caused excessive pressures, etc.
 
Dragon029 said:
On Reddit it was suggested or rumoured that some harmonic resonance from the LOX flow may have caused excessive pressures, etc.
Click to expand...

I find it rather strange that harmonic resonance (sound waves) could build up to such a point during LOX fueling, that it causes an explosion. I always thought that modern rockets had safety devices for just such an issue.
 
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/10/01/0619247/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation
 
It's quite a leap from SpaceX looking at an anomaly to implications of sabotage.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

Not new
Sabotage is not new
Arianespace face similar problem
way back in 1990 flight V-36, seven flight of Ariane 4
as investigation board found the problem: a rag was stuck into rocket pipes

They never had find the culprits,
but since then the French Foreign Legion guarding the Launch site and
The rocket were inspected endoscopic before putting on launch pad

no more rags were found

There were allot of speculation on who culprits, the french media made speculation about CIA agents or US aerospace industry...
 
Or i dont know. It could just be self feeding, self serving cycle of BS journalism? How about that, that would be truly unheard of. Right?
 
Clickbait FTW. Although it would be nuts if that really is what went down and they could prove it. A fantasy nonetheless, and frankly I'm surprised SpaceX even let it slide in the media and didn't just come out and deny the suspicions. Kind of makes them look amateurish, to blame it on competitor sabotage... unless it really was.
 
Even if the Arianespace rag was sabotage, it's much more likely to have been a disgruntled employee. That sort of thing crops up periodically in almost every line of work -- someone on the assembly line who feels mistreated, underappreciated, overworked, etc. sees an opportunity to get back at his bosses and takes it. Sometimes it gets caught in the QA process, sometimes not.

For example, a few years back, someone was sabotaging aircraft on the CH-47 assembly line. After much speculation about anti-war protesters, terrorists, etc. at least one incident was traced to be a plant worker who didn't want to change to a new job.

http://6abc.com/archive/6153840/
 
All this talk about sabotage has certainly made the prospect of a quick solution to the investigation that much harder. I certainly would not like to be a member of the team that has to look through all the data and try to decide what is the truth.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom