16 ms·

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 su

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-bought-285-million/ http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom...

dogma1138 10y ago
It's a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017. There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage theories. But yeah it's not great for spacecom in general, Facebook also will now withdraw from their contract with them for supplying internet to Africa as AMOS-6 was supposed to replace AMOS-2 and enhance the coverage over Africa and the Middle East. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-Ka-band-coverage.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-K... Israel is one of the few countries that is pushing satellite coverage in the area, AMOS-6 was supposed to grant up to 20gbps of bandwidth to Africa over the leased Ka band which was desperately needed.
- wyager 10y ago
  Won't they just relaunch in a few months? Not sure what the rebuild timeline is.
  - keyme 10y ago
    No, they don't have redundancies for satellites. It's 2 to 3 years.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    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 probably 4-5 years, SpaceX was selected as the launch contractor in late 2012 originally for a mid 2015 launch but the launch was delayed for various reasons.
    - wyager 10y ago
      Would it go faster the second time around, since they've already validated the design?
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        The design might be the "easy" part, these are 6 tons of one off highly specialized components with a huge lead time. Each component is custom and built for order by a contractor the lead time on some of them can be years simply because there aren't that many companies that design and build space systems. That combined with the fact that they need to go to each subcontractor and ask them to bid again after Spacecom finds a way to finance it (there is no way the insurance payout is anywhere near the actual cost of the satellite) would probably mean that the time it takes to build a new one isn't that different than it was to build the original. Think of it like this if you total your McLaren P1-GTR there isn't an easy way to get a new one ;)
        phonon 10y ago
        > there is no way the insurance payout is anywhere near the actual cost of the satellite Why not?
        phonon 10y ago
        Well, in this case it looks like it is $0 :-( https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/with_replies https://twitter.com/pbdes/with_replies
- abduhl 10y ago
  Sounds like SpaceX just killed multiple deals for this company. Could someone who knows about this kind of stuff (I assume this subset of the population is small) comment on whether there is recourse against SpaceX for losing the payload?
  - X-Istence 10y ago
    Unfortunately accidents happen, I have a feeling that some insurance company somewhere is going to end up paying for the damages...
    - gumby 10y ago
      It's possible to insure against business risk as well as asset risk, though it's usually not worth the premium. Though I've never been in the space business I would be surprised if it were not common for launches.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Private launches are required to carry insurance in order to receive a license; I looked it up when the Orbital rocket had a similar RUD, and the government had mandated something like $140 million or so between government property contingency and general liability, if I recall. Edit: Yeah, here's Orbital's (I can't find SpaceX's): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLO%2014-091%20Rev%201%20-%20Antares%20config%20230_WFF.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as... -- last two pages. It looks like they revised this license recently for their return to flight, too?
    - thesimon 10y ago
      Not covered by launch insurance (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400), will be interesting to see if there is an insurance to cover that.
      - pavelrub 10y ago
        Of course it's not covered by launch insurance - it happened during the pre-launch stage. It was covered by marine cargo insurance.
- sickbeard 10y ago
  So sabotage could be a factor?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - krisdol 10y ago
    This is in the realm of conspiracy theory. No evidence points to this. Nothing the parent comment said suggests it. I think you are filling in the blanks with your own hypotheses but they're accusatory shots in the dark at this point. It's possible, sure, but so are a lot of things.
    - taneq 10y ago
      This waving of tinfoil is making me wonder just how vulnerable a rocket like this would be to a sniper rifle bullet. I mean, it's pretty big, and it's full of all sorts of explosive goodies. I'd expect the chances of something going wrong if it's hit by a shot just as it lights up for a test run to be rather high. Edit: Now imagine if last week you'd shorted as much stock as you could in the companies involved...
  - jnwrd 10y ago
    I like the way you think. How could someone determine if this occurred? Rocket sabotage seems like a rather perfect crime, very little evidence is left afterwards.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Your legal and technical claims sound highly questionable to me. Satellite operators are not responsible for the successful operation of the launch vehicle, and one would expect their contractual arrangements to reflect that. That would be like firing someone because their commuter train derailed and they were late to work as a result.
- nraynaud 10y ago
  Why did they make a contract contingent on factors outside the contractant's influence? that seems counterintuitive.
  - zeeveener 10y ago
    Based on what others have posted, it's not necessarily a clause like, "If you launch successfully, we go ahead with the deal", but rather a clause like, "If the satellite is operational within X amount of time, we will go ahead with the deal." This explosion probably put them way past the X amount of time so the deal would fall through.
anigbrowl 10y ago
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 Beijing Xinwei would be expected to factor the risks into its pricing calculations.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "It's irrational to argue that you would pull out of a merger because a 3rd party's rocket failure delayed a launch." 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.
- mejari 10y ago
  The failure of the launch changes the real world situation. It's not irrational to argue that such a change also changes the pros/cons of a merger. The fact that it was related to a 3rd party is irrelevant.
intrasight 10y ago
Stock is down about 10%. Makes me wonder if high-speed traders seek realtime video feeds of such launches. Is the "official" feed delayed?
- bluehawk 10y ago
  There was no official feed, it wasn't a launch, it was a pre-launch test fire.
rpgmaker 10y ago
I don't think the USG will allow SpaceX to be acquired by a Chinese company.

dogma1138 10y ago

It's a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017. There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage theories. But yeah it's not great for spacecom in general, Facebook also will now withdraw from their contract with them for supplying internet to Africa as AMOS-6 was supposed to replace AMOS-2 and enhance the coverage over Africa and the Middle East. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-Ka-band-coverage.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-K... Israel is one of the few countries that is pushing satellite coverage in the area, AMOS-6 was supposed to grant up to 20gbps of bandwidth to Africa over the leased Ka band which was desperately needed.

wyager 10y ago
Won't they just relaunch in a few months? Not sure what the rebuild timeline is.
- keyme 10y ago
  No, they don't have redundancies for satellites. It's 2 to 3 years.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  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 probably 4-5 years, SpaceX was selected as the launch contractor in late 2012 originally for a mid 2015 launch but the launch was delayed for various reasons.
  - wyager 10y ago
    Would it go faster the second time around, since they've already validated the design?
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      The design might be the "easy" part, these are 6 tons of one off highly specialized components with a huge lead time. Each component is custom and built for order by a contractor the lead time on some of them can be years simply because there aren't that many companies that design and build space systems. That combined with the fact that they need to go to each subcontractor and ask them to bid again after Spacecom finds a way to finance it (there is no way the insurance payout is anywhere near the actual cost of the satellite) would probably mean that the time it takes to build a new one isn't that different than it was to build the original. Think of it like this if you total your McLaren P1-GTR there isn't an easy way to get a new one ;)
      - phonon 10y ago
        > there is no way the insurance payout is anywhere near the actual cost of the satellite Why not?
        phonon 10y ago
        Well, in this case it looks like it is $0 :-( https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/with_replies https://twitter.com/pbdes/with_replies
abduhl 10y ago
Sounds like SpaceX just killed multiple deals for this company. Could someone who knows about this kind of stuff (I assume this subset of the population is small) comment on whether there is recourse against SpaceX for losing the payload?
- X-Istence 10y ago
  Unfortunately accidents happen, I have a feeling that some insurance company somewhere is going to end up paying for the damages...
  - gumby 10y ago
    It's possible to insure against business risk as well as asset risk, though it's usually not worth the premium. Though I've never been in the space business I would be surprised if it were not common for launches.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Private launches are required to carry insurance in order to receive a license; I looked it up when the Orbital rocket had a similar RUD, and the government had mandated something like $140 million or so between government property contingency and general liability, if I recall. Edit: Yeah, here's Orbital's (I can't find SpaceX's): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLO%2014-091%20Rev%201%20-%20Antares%20config%20230_WFF.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as... -- last two pages. It looks like they revised this license recently for their return to flight, too?
  - thesimon 10y ago
    Not covered by launch insurance (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400 https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400), will be interesting to see if there is an insurance to cover that.
    - pavelrub 10y ago
      Of course it's not covered by launch insurance - it happened during the pre-launch stage. It was covered by marine cargo insurance.
sickbeard 10y ago
So sabotage could be a factor?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- krisdol 10y ago
  This is in the realm of conspiracy theory. No evidence points to this. Nothing the parent comment said suggests it. I think you are filling in the blanks with your own hypotheses but they're accusatory shots in the dark at this point. It's possible, sure, but so are a lot of things.
  - taneq 10y ago
    This waving of tinfoil is making me wonder just how vulnerable a rocket like this would be to a sniper rifle bullet. I mean, it's pretty big, and it's full of all sorts of explosive goodies. I'd expect the chances of something going wrong if it's hit by a shot just as it lights up for a test run to be rather high. Edit: Now imagine if last week you'd shorted as much stock as you could in the companies involved...
- jnwrd 10y ago
  I like the way you think. How could someone determine if this occurred? Rocket sabotage seems like a rather perfect crime, very little evidence is left afterwards.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Your legal and technical claims sound highly questionable to me. Satellite operators are not responsible for the successful operation of the launch vehicle, and one would expect their contractual arrangements to reflect that. That would be like firing someone because their commuter train derailed and they were late to work as a result.
nraynaud 10y ago
Why did they make a contract contingent on factors outside the contractant's influence? that seems counterintuitive.
- zeeveener 10y ago
  Based on what others have posted, it's not necessarily a clause like, "If you launch successfully, we go ahead with the deal", but rather a clause like, "If the satellite is operational within X amount of time, we will go ahead with the deal." This explosion probably put them way past the X amount of time so the deal would fall through.

anigbrowl 10y ago

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 Beijing Xinwei would be expected to factor the risks into its pricing calculations.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"It's irrational to argue that you would pull out of a merger because a 3rd party's rocket failure delayed a launch." 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.
mejari 10y ago
The failure of the launch changes the real world situation. It's not irrational to argue that such a change also changes the pros/cons of a merger. The fact that it was related to a 3rd party is irrelevant.

intrasight 10y ago

Stock is down about 10%. Makes me wonder if high-speed traders seek realtime video feeds of such launches. Is the "official" feed delayed?

bluehawk 10y ago
There was no official feed, it wasn't a launch, it was a pre-launch test fire.

rpgmaker 10y ago

I don't think the USG will allow SpaceX to be acquired by a Chinese company.