You see how routine this ISS logistics flight is (compared with, say, the one that flew hours before this one 
) when you need to reach page 7 to dig out this thread!
Anyway this Progress will leave the station in 2 hours time at around 06:40 UTC. 
NASA TV coverage has started - someone please help me with the screenshots...
You see how routine this ISS logistics flight is (compared with, say, the one that flew hours before this one ) when you need to reach page 7 to dig out this thread!
Anyway this Progress will leave the station in 2 hours time at around 06:40 UTC.
NASA TV coverage has started - someone please help me with the screenshots...
You see, this has become so routine that no-one here managed to catch this one (even in this sleepy hours had this be a Dragon leaving I'm sure there will be people posting
)
Anyway here it is:
More videos from our cosmonauts:
According to Novosti Kosmonavtiki, separation took place at 0641:14UTC. Progress M-25M should reenter on Earth's atmosphere on April 26.
I have hit one of those things I am struggling to understand. It looks like they under insured this launch?
Progress M-25M (№424) flew on Soyuz-2-1a №Г15000-021 (16М136С). That rocket had been manufactured under contract №353-1193/12, and had been intended to launch Progress MS-02 (№432) [
source]. Total cost 939,502,000 Russian ruble.
A Soyuz-U had been ordered for Progress-M №424, under contract №353-1130/12 [
source]. Total cost 636,570,000 Russian ruble.
The launch was insured:-
Страхование рисков при запуске ракеты-носителя «Союз-2.1а» с космическим аппаратом «Прогресс М-25М» (№424) и стыковке космического аппарата «Прогресс М-25М» с Международной космической станцией.
[
source]
Those tenders for insurance are a little confusing because they round things up, but the rocket and fairing are shown to have cost 684 million ruble. That would cover a Soyuz-U rocket at 636,570,000 and 46,686,000 for the fairing; not a Soyuz-2-1a.
Lucky then it was a success?
I think it's not unusual to slightly underinsure an item (launch, valuables, etc) to save a little on the premium. It's equivalent to insuring the rest of the value yourself: it's your loss if something goes wrong. An instance company likes this, for the same reason they *don't* like overinsuring: they want to make sure your incentives are aligned toward success.
So the insurance value is (in the absence of corruption) probably best treated as a lower limit on the value of the item insured.
This is just a general observation from economics; I have no special insight on Russian launch insurance. (And my observations are in the absence of market distortions or corruption, which are probably not sound presuppositions in this case.)
) when you need to reach page 7 to dig out this thread!
)