What is the failure rate of launchers if you exclude all flight prior to the first success?

[Yggdrasill]

Not true.  Government launches are self insured and commercial ones use insurance.

I doubt most early test flights with limited or no payload are insured. If they are, the insurance would at least have to be extremely expensive. Like 50+% of the cost of the launch.

[Jim]

Not true.  Government launches are self insured and commercial ones use insurance.

I doubt most early test flights with limited or no payload are insured. If they are, the insurance would at least have to be extremely expensive. Like 50+% of the cost of the launch.

Wriong, see the payloads for the 1st Delta IV or Atlas V.  Just discounted launch service price.

[Yggdrasill]

Wriong, see the payloads for the 1st Delta IV or Atlas V.  Just discounted launch service price.

I'm sure some first/early launches have insurance, but I doubt *most* are insured. Do you think Astra has gotten $10-20 million for their three failed Rocket 3 launches? How much do you think they paid for that insurance?

Do you think Firefly has a check in the mail for $15 million? How much did they pay for that insurance?

How much did SpaceX get for their first three Falcon 1 launches?

[Kryten]

 Launch insurance is for payloads.

[Yggdrasill]

Launch insurance is for payloads.

That was my understanding as well, but I am a little fuzzy on the details. My understanding is that the launch costs can be covered by insurance as well, but if it pays out to the owner of the payload, how does that affect the launch provider? I would guess the launch provider would have to give the owner of the payload their money back, or a new launch. But in that case the insurance shouldn't pay the owner of the payload for their losses on the launch, as they have none. This would mean the insurance doesn't protect the launch provider at all.

Generally though, it's always possible to buy insurance. It's just a question of paying enough. Like if there's a test launch with an estimated 50/50 chance of failure and a cost of $10 million, the insurance company should require a fee of something like $6 million or more to insure the launch. The expected average payout is $5 million, which means they would make $1 million, on average. For the launch provider, they have spent $6 million if the flight is a failure, but $16 million if the flight is a success.

This *could* make sense for a company, even though it's expensive. Say they have $16 million to spend, but if they have a successful launch they could take the company public and raise hundreds of millions. Without insurance, they only have enough money for one launch. If it fails, they're bankrupt. So they're betting the company on a 50/50 shot. While with insurance, if the launch is a success, they are out some money, but the company survives. And if it is a failure, they can actually afford a second launch attempt with the insurance money.

But to back to my point, government self insurance vs commercial insurance doesn't provide commercial launch providers with an economic benefit, like Jim suggested. In the best case, where one assumes they actually insure their test launches, they are paying huge sums of money to the insurance companies. In the event of launch failures, they will still be bleeding money, and their their reliability records will also gradually get worse, which isn't great for attracting well-paying customers.

If a self-insured government launch fails, there's usually still money in the budget for next year. The budgets might even increase, to try to avoid embarrassing launch failures in the future. The taxpayers are an endless source of money, as long as the politicians don't pull the plug.

[joek]

Launch insurance is for payloads.

That was my understanding as well, but I am a little fuzzy on the details. My understanding is that the launch costs can be covered by insurance as well, but if it pays out to the owner of the payload, how does that affect the launch provider?
...

Insurance may cover anything from payload only, to replacement launch cost, to payload on-orbit life or achieving specific objectives... or whatever else the owner wants to throw in the bucket. Some are outside the control of the launch provider and would not be considered part of "launch insurance" (e.g., on-orbit life). Some may be negotiated; e.g., does launch provider provide replacement launch at their expense, or is that part of the insurance?

If we narrow this down to "did the launch provider get the payload to intended destination-orbit?" then the equation becomes somewhat simpler. From an insurance perspective, the primary factor is going to be: how much have the insurer(s) had to pay out for a particular launch provider or launch vehicle? That directly impacts the price of launching on that provider.

However, that simple equation elides factors such as the cost of delays (and loss of revenue) due to a launch failure. Again, insuring those would be part of how insurer's price their offering, and thus impacts the total cost of using a given launch provider. Hope that helps clarify a bit.

[Jim]

1.  how does that affect the launch provider? I would guess the launch provider would have to give the owner of the payload their money back, or a new launch. But in that case the insurance shouldn't pay the owner of the payload for their losses on the launch, as they have none. This would mean the insurance doesn't protect the launch provider at all.

2.  But to back to my point, government self insurance vs commercial insurance doesn't provide commercial launch providers with an economic benefit, like Jim suggested. In the best case, where one assumes they actually insure their test launches, they are paying huge sums of money to the insurance companies. In the event of launch failures, they will still be bleeding money, and their their reliability records will also gradually get worse, which isn't great for attracting well-paying customers.

3.  If a self-insured government launch fails, there's usually still money in the budget for next year. The budgets might even increase, to try to avoid embarrassing launch failures in the future. The taxpayers are an endless source of money, as long as the politicians don't pull the plug.

1.  The launch provider gets nothing and pays nothing from the payload insurance.  He doesn't need protection, he got paid for his services.   Unless the launch provider got its own insurance, but why bother.

2.  Test launches aren't insured unless there is a paying payload.

3.  No there isn't.  It has to go through budget cycles to get a replacement added back in.