Author Topic: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options  (Read 6764 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« on: 08/07/2013 03:38 pm »

Insurance for NASA would be building and running two missions for each unique mission.

In an era of tight budgets, that is a luxury.

The extra cost would also reduce the number of unique missions that NASA can run.
Building two of each mission is a *very* expensive method of insurance if only a small percentage fail.  Except for planetary missions with non-recurring launch windows (outer planet missions come to mind), it's much cheaper to take out insurance that pays money if the probe fails, then build a new one with the money.

Since the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 thread has been taken over by discussions about optimal methodologies for NASA to spend more money on launches, I am setting up a separate thread for that discussion.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #1 on: 08/07/2013 03:41 pm »
Another approach would be for NASA to develop a series of standard buses for each launch vehicle class, so in the event of launch failure, a replacement satellite could be produced more quickly.

However, the problem is that "standard buses" become obsolete before the next launch failure.

Some "standardized buses" have been useful, such as the French Proteus, and in the commercial realm, but not so much for NASA.

« Last Edit: 08/07/2013 03:42 pm by Danderman »

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 939
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #2 on: 08/07/2013 03:55 pm »
Another approach would be for NASA to develop a series of standard buses for each launch vehicle class, so in the event of launch failure, a replacement satellite could be produced more quickly.

However, the problem is that "standard buses" become obsolete before the next launch failure.

Some "standardized buses" have been useful, such as the French Proteus, and in the commercial realm, but not so much for NASA.


NASA already follows this approach (whereever possible): Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO)
http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/catalog.html

But in general, not the bus but the payload is the bottleneck.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2013 03:56 pm by Skyrocket »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #3 on: 08/07/2013 04:08 pm »
Another approach would be for NASA to develop a series of standard buses for each launch vehicle class, so in the event of launch failure, a replacement satellite could be produced more quickly.


Bus configurations aren't driven by launch vehicle class, they are driven by mission requirements.  A earth viewing polar orbiter, GSO satcom, astronomy spacecraft and planetary probe all have different requirements.
There are common buses for GSO satellites and the DOD and NASA use them as well as some polar orbiter buses.  The other mission types are too infrequent and varying to have common buses.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #4 on: 08/07/2013 06:04 pm »
Doesn't keep NASA from trying...They have tried to develop standard buses in the past. Mariner comes to mind.

The problem, as Jim has pointed out is many of NASA's mission have unique requirements, and follow up missions from lessons learned from the prior mission(s). Meaning a complete redesign.

As I pointed out in the previous thread, for unique mission NASA's original approach in the 60's was two build two of everything. The down side is it costs more, and the follow on missions are a redesign anyway. So you have driven up costs.

NASA has done a good job leveraging lessons learned from prior missions into the new missions. But it is still a large amount of re-engineering for each mission. The latest series of Mars landers (not rovers) come to mind, along with StartDust / Genesis.

It comes down to how much are you willing to pay for mission assurance at the cost of limiting the number of missions you can do.

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #5 on: 08/07/2013 07:39 pm »
Cubesats may use a small bus because people will not have the time to develop an entire satellite.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #6 on: 08/07/2013 08:02 pm »
Cubesats may use a small bus because people will not have the time to develop an entire satellite.

Cubesat is not not class of spacecraft or generic term like nanosat.  They are a standardized small spacecraft bus by definition that meet a design specification.

http://www.cubesat.org/images/developers/cds_rev12.pdf

Offline dchill

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #7 on: 08/08/2013 02:16 pm »
... But it is still a large amount of re-engineering for each mission. The latest series of Mars landers (not rovers) come to mind, along with StartDust / Genesis. ...

I think you'd be surprised by the amount of direct reuse there has been across all the LM built interplanetary spacecraft since MCO, particulary in avionics and software, but most importantly also in people, processes and tools. (MCO->MPL->Stardust->Odyssey->Genesis & Phoenix & Spitzer, and a branch from Odyssey->MRO->Juno & GRAIL->MAVEN->OSIRIS-REx & InSight).  Without the amount of reuse that has been possible, the costs for those missions would undoubtedly have been higher.

Hopefully there's enough money in NASA's future budgets for new interplanetary missions to keep that continuity going.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 598
  • Likes Given: 2058
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #8 on: 10/07/2013 02:27 pm »
If I ran NASA I would require any launch service provider to include insurance (self or otherwise) for the launch and payload. Simultaneously I would eliminate most of the insight/oversight bureaucracy. Let the launch services provider ensure reliability however they want and compensate NASA if they fail to do so.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #9 on: 10/07/2013 02:53 pm »
If I ran NASA I would require any launch service provider to include insurance (self or otherwise) for the launch and payload. Simultaneously I would eliminate most of the insight/oversight bureaucracy. Let the launch services provider ensure reliability however they want and compensate NASA if they fail to do so.

Do you know what the cost of this would be for a typical science mission ?

Let's take a Maven for example.

Let's assume Maven costs multiple of hundreds of dollars to build the first time. Then there is the multiple years of effort of the research that went into designing and building Maven. What if Maven doesn't launch successfully ? Are you saying the launch provider needs to pay for a replacement Maven, plus pay for the extra 2 years of time the researchers need to wait for the next Mars launch window ? And that's if a replacement Maven could be built in that time period. What if the replacement misses that window, and you have to wait for another appropriate launch window ? Who pays for these researchers whose career was supposed to be collecting data from a mission that didn't get launched on time ?


Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #10 on: 10/07/2013 04:57 pm »
The insurance industry would never sign up for this.  There actually isn't enough reinsurance available on the market for anything over ~$700M.  This has been well-researched, and the market is well-understood.  Launch providers would never sign up to that level of financial risk.  Congresscritters would have a field day grilling the NASA/DoD executives who made this decision.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 598
  • Likes Given: 2058
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #11 on: 10/07/2013 06:44 pm »
The insurance industry would never sign up for this.  There actually isn't enough reinsurance available on the market for anything over ~$700M.  This has been well-researched, and the market is well-understood.  Launch providers would never sign up to that level of financial risk.  Congresscritters would have a field day grilling the NASA/DoD executives who made this decision.

Boeing regularly risks billions of dollars on new airliner development. For example it spent upwards of $32 billion on the 787 before the first delivery: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2016310102_boeing25.html. Why can't it risk a single billion on self-insuring a launch? I totally get that it would rather not but I'm very dubious about your implication that Boeing and Lockheed would rather walk away from the launch business than put their money where their mouth is regarding the reliability of their products.

Basically I accept that it would not be economical to have any party except Uncle Sam insure JWST but for more ordinary satellites like MAVEN I'm not convinced that having the launch provider responsible for insurance is unworkable.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2013 06:45 pm by deltaV »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #12 on: 10/07/2013 07:35 pm »
Let's say you were a company like Sea Launch. How many successful launches in a row would it take for the margin to pay for their numerous failures ?

Besides, this self-insurance cost becomes a huge barrier to entry for new players. Where do they raise that much capital ?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #13 on: 10/08/2013 01:44 am »

Basically I accept that it would not be economical to have any party except Uncle Sam insure JWST but for more ordinary satellites like MAVEN I'm not convinced that having the launch provider responsible for insurance is unworkable.

MAVEN isn't an ordinary spacecraft.  Anyways, the idea is unworkable.  Any money received from insurance would go into the Treasury general fund and not to NASA.  The US Govt is not going to change its practices just for NASA

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: NASA launches: self insurance vs other options
« Reply #14 on: 10/08/2013 04:44 am »
I'm very dubious about your implication...

I'm just trying to explain reality.  For some reason, several have questioned my experience lately.  If you see it as dubious, that's to your detriment because it's real.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2013 05:13 am by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1