Insurance rates for different launch providers

[john smith 19]

It is in fact much more substantial than you assume:
- New tankage manufacturing methods to substantially lower production costs.
- Different length of tankage compared to A5.
- New fairing manufacturing method to substantially lower production costs.
- Increased fairing length (optional).
- Completely new thrust-frame for core stage engine.
- Completely new forward thrust-take-out skirt.
- Completely new solid rocket boosters, based on Vega-C first stage. Composite casing in stead of steel casing.
- Compared to the ESC-A upper stage of A5 the upper stage of A6 is completely new, with a new engine, new thrust-frame, new tankage, new avionics and new insulation.  Compared to that the ESC-A upper stage of A5 was really just a mash-up of the Ariane 4 upper stage using the original A4 thrust-frame and LOX tank combined with a new LH2 tank.
- Vulcain 2.1 engine features radically re-designed nozzle extension as well as re-designed turbines and increased chamber pressure.
- Completely new launchpad and associated infrastructure.

The shift in mfg methods is quite a big change, but I think the shift to composite SRB casings is even bigger. BTW Isn't the standard for the A6 US going to be the Vinci engine?

On that basis the A5/A6 shift is more like that between Atlas 3 (pressure stabilized steel) to Atlas V (Aluminum with machined in stiffners).

That I would expect to raise insurance rates, pending a track record being established.

The puzzle is still why A5's rate is so close to F9, or vice versa. 

[woods170]

It is in fact much more substantial than you assume:
- New tankage manufacturing methods to substantially lower production costs.
- Different length of tankage compared to A5.
- New fairing manufacturing method to substantially lower production costs.
- Increased fairing length (optional).
- Completely new thrust-frame for core stage engine.
- Completely new forward thrust-take-out skirt.
- Completely new solid rocket boosters, based on Vega-C first stage. Composite casing in stead of steel casing.
- Compared to the ESC-A upper stage of A5 the upper stage of A6 is completely new, with a new engine, new thrust-frame, new tankage, new avionics and new insulation.  Compared to that the ESC-A upper stage of A5 was really just a mash-up of the Ariane 4 upper stage using the original A4 thrust-frame and LOX tank combined with a new LH2 tank.
- Vulcain 2.1 engine features radically re-designed nozzle extension as well as re-designed turbines and increased chamber pressure.
- Completely new launchpad and associated infrastructure.

The shift in mfg methods is quite a big change, but I think the shift to composite SRB casings is even bigger. BTW Isn't the standard for the A6 US going to be the Vinci engine?

On that basis the A5/A6 shift is more like that between Atlas 3 (pressure stabilized steel) to Atlas V (Aluminum with machined in stiffners).

That I would expect to raise insurance rates, pending a track record being established.

The puzzle is still why A5's rate is so close to F9, or vice versa. 

Exactly. Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 is much more like Atlas III to Atlas V than Ariane 5G to Ariane 5 ECA.
The new engine for the new upper stage of Ariane 6 is indeed the Vinci engine. It is "new" because it has never been used before on any other launcher, despite having been in development since 1998.
Yes, you read that correctly: Vinci has been in development for the better part of 2 decades.

[john smith 19]

Exactly. Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 is much more like Atlas III to Atlas V than Ariane 5G to Ariane 5 ECA.
The new engine for the new upper stage of Ariane 6 is indeed the Vinci engine. It is "new" because it has never been used before on any other launcher, despite having been in development since 1998.
Yes, you read that correctly: Vinci has been in development for the better part of 2 decades.

I'd query the development part. My sense is that going to Vinci means basically a whole new US and that's been bound up with the whole upgrade/replace discussion for A5, part of which seems to be about how the design is funded and built and dates from when A6 was going to be a much different beast (single, not dual main payload).  My feeling was that a re-startable LH2 US was exactly what A5 needed to support multiple comm sats to widely different locations in GEO, but the other issue was comm sat grown meant it could no longer accommodate 2 top weight comm sats together. IOW it was overdue a payload upgrade.

WRT to this thread title the question is how that affects insurance rates, on payloads, and I'd guess it will raise them

[abaddon]

The puzzle is still why A5's rate is so close to F9, or vice versa. 

We already have a reasonable answer to that question: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44012.msg1740502#msg1740502:

So adding a few percent for satellite failure makes the premiums line up with the observed failure rates much better.

[Ragmar]

Interesting article. Do we think there's any possibility we'll see a greater movement towards self-insurance among launch companies? Given that more and more new launch ventures are backed by super-wealthy individuals, is it possible companies will start moving towards self-insurance as a way to avoid higher rates? Do we know if any launch companies are doing that already?

[Sam Ho]

Except some do seem to go a lot longer than others before one of their vehicles goes bang. Russians, for example seemed to manage 100s of launches without a RUD.

As noted in the article that started this thread, insurance rates for Proton are 3x those for Ariane, and at risk of driving Proton out of the commercial market.  No-one has "100s of launches" without a failure.  Soyuz had about 150 launches without a failure in the 1980s.  Delta 2 had about 100 successes in a row.

[john smith 19]

Except some do seem to go a lot longer than others before one of their vehicles goes bang. Russians, for example seemed to manage 100s of launches without a RUD.

As noted in the article that started this thread, insurance rates for Proton are 3x those for Ariane, and at risk of driving Proton out of the commercial market.  No-one has "100s of launches" without a failure.  Soyuz had about 150 launches without a failure in the 1980s.  Delta 2 had about 100 successes in a row.

At the risk of being pedantic 150 is "multiple 100s"

[Nomadd]

 There's pretty huge error in the way most people are figuring premiums. The insurance companies aren't shooting for a 10% profit margin. Their aim is to have claim payouts no more than 50% of premiums. It's why many deep pocket companies are self insured.

[Tywin]

Swiss Re leave the market...

Jan Schmidt, the head of Swiss Re’s space underwriting division, said in an email obtained by SpaceNews that the decision to “cease Space underwriting with immediate effect” was driven by “bad results of recent years and unsustainable premium rates.”

https://spacenews.com/space-insurer-swiss-re-leaves-market/

What this means for space sector?

[Asteroza]

Swiss Re leave the market...

What this means for space sector?

I would imagine with the increasing reuse footprint of SpaceX, there might be a shift where expendables might expect a raise in premiums, at least in the short term as the number of insurance providers is reduced. If Musk gets Starship to orbit, it will be interesting which insurance provider moves first to lower premiums for riding on Falcon9/Starship as that will signal a downward spiral on premiums for Starship riders. With higher expendable premiums, that means there will be a preference for expendable launchers that are in volume manufacturing, favoring RocketLabs with their expected monthly cadence. For smallsat launchers, if you are not in nearly monthly launch cadence before Starship goes commercial, you better be state backed and consign yourself to being beholden to government launches, and kiss that sweet startup IPO goodbye...

[Tywin]

Swiss Re leave the market...

What this means for space sector?

I would imagine with the increasing reuse footprint of SpaceX, there might be a shift where expendables might expect a raise in premiums, at least in the short term as the number of insurance providers is reduced. If Musk gets Starship to orbit, it will be interesting which insurance provider moves first to lower premiums for riding on Falcon9/Starship as that will signal a downward spiral on premiums for Starship riders. With higher expendable premiums, that means there will be a preference for expendable launchers that are in volume manufacturing, favoring RocketLabs with their expected monthly cadence. For smallsat launchers, if you are not in nearly monthly launch cadence before Starship goes commercial, you better be state backed and consign yourself to being beholden to government launches, and kiss that sweet startup IPO goodbye...

Yeaah look like will increase significatively...

The insurance loss for the rocket and satellite represents the largest recorded loss in the space market, satellite analysis firm Seradata said.

“Insurance rates for both launch and in-orbit have been at historically low levels and ... need to increase significantly.”

https://in.reuters.com/article/space-insurance/space-insurance-costs-to-rocket-after-satellite-crash-idINKCN1UQ2FH?il=0

[Blackjax]

I've been giving some thought to the updated SpaceX rideshare program and while there was a lot of discussion about how SpaceX was undercutting the price of existing and proposed small launchers, I didn't see anything about the insurance aspect of things which would be part of the total cost picture for prospective customers. 

Does anyone know what the likely rates are for an operational but relatively inexperienced launcher like RocketLabs? 

What about new entrants with no history like Virgin or Firefly?

One of the harsh aspects of this move by SpaceX could be that it makes it really difficult for them to win enough payloads to establish a clear flight history and get competitive insurance rates in a reasonable timeframe.  When SpaceX was trying to break into the launch industry as the new kid on the block, they had the benefit of being the low cost option, contributing to their ability to win enough payloads to establish a flight history.  If the rideshare program didn't fly very often and if something like Momentous didn't exist to get your rideshare payload to a specific orbit, the small launchers might win on flexiility rather than cost but as things stand one has to wonder how they will manage to fly often enough to prove themselves.

[gongora]

I don't think insurance rates will make any difference at all for the rideshare market.

[Blackjax]

I don't think insurance rates will make any difference at all for the rideshare market.

I'm curious about your reasoning for this.

[gongora]

I just can't really imagine the difference in insurance rates between launching on Electron and F9 being large enough to really make a difference when choosing a rideshare provider.  Electron's flight history is just as good as SpaceX's, although shorter.  Using a third-party tug adds more uncertainty to a mission, which if you're insuring delivery to final orbit would have to be taken into account.

[Blackjax]

Using a third-party tug adds more uncertainty to a mission, which if you're insuring delivery to final orbit would have to be taken into account.

That's another question I'd be interested in learning more about.  Is there any information out there on the impact to rates for using a service like this irrespective of the launcher?

[gongora]

https://spacenews.com/space-insurance-rates-increasing-as-insurers-review-their-place-in-the-market/

Rora said that while rate are increasing, he did not expect a return to the high rates of the early 2000s. “Even if there is a sharp increase today, the levels we will see are similar to those around 2009 and 2010,” he said, when launch plus one-year insurance rates were about 10%.

[PatMick]

Interesting topic. I'd also like to know if it's possible that corporations will begin to move towards self-insurance as a means to avoid higher rates? Do we know if Space-X or any other corps are doing this?

[Asteroza]

Using a third-party tug adds more uncertainty to a mission, which if you're insuring delivery to final orbit would have to be taken into account.

That's another question I'd be interested in learning more about.  Is there any information out there on the impact to rates for using a service like this irrespective of the launcher?

Since we haven't really had a fully independent tug that can ride on anybody's rocket before, there's not much precedence. The closest would be solid rocket SRM kick stages, which appear to be manufactured is certain families of sizes (or just a fixed set of sizes). The Star series SRM's would a be start point comparison perhaps? There are upper stages that are not entirely one-rocket designs, such as russian heritage Fregat and Breeze stages, but those are big stages and not really small tugs per se.

[su27k]

Space insurers just might book 2020 as a gross profit, but with the lowest premium volume in 20+ years

You know it’s a struggling business when its first gross profit in three years, likely to end up a net loss, is based on the lowest annual revenue in at least two decades.

That’s where the world’s space insurers found themselves at the end of 2020. And 2021 began inauspiciously when Sirius XM Holdings filed a $225 million claim for the total loss of its Sirius XM-7 satellite