IAI Files Lawsuit Over Lost Satellite
Falcon 9 explodes on the launch pad during fueling. (Credit: USLaunchReport.com)
The fallout from the explosion of a Falcon 9 on the launch pad in September 2016 continues with a dispute over an insurance payment, Globes reports.
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. (IAI) (TASE: ARSP.B1) today filed a NIS 300 million [$88 million] lawsuit at the Central District Court against Lloyd’s of London underwriters, the insurers of the Amos 6 satellite; Migdal Insurance and Financial Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MGDL) subsidiary Peltours Insurance Agency; and UK broker Marsh.The lawsuit involves the explosion of the Amos 6 satellite in September 2016 before its scheduled launch from Cape Canaveral, Florida, and the insurance compensation due to IAI from the satellite’s loss. Following the explosion of the satellite and negotiations between the parties, the insurers paid IAI $215 million in compensation. A dispute remains between the parties over the NIS 300 million not yet paid to IAI, for which a lawsuit has now been filed.
The insurers main argument is that the satellite exploded during a test of the launching rocket’s engines at a time when the satellite was connected to the rocket. They assert that they were not notified that the satellite would be attached to the rocket during the test, and that the insurance coverage should therefore be reduced by the increased rate of risk.
Through Advocates Ilan Sofer, Guy Wilf, and Jonathan Dori from the Goldfarb Seligman law firm, IAI is arguing that the explosion did not take place during a test of the engines, according to the statement by the SpaceX company, owned by Elon Musk, which was responsible for launching the satellite into outer space, and that by law and under the terms of the insurance policy, no notice was required, as claimed by the insurers.
17 responses to “IAI Files Lawsuit Over Lost Satellite”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I just looked at that video yesterday. Amos did not explode attached to the rocket. It did explode when it fell off and when it hit the ground. The tanks never exploded on that F9. They held up Amos on that video for about 10 sec. Actually it was longer than that. Look at the vultures circling. Fast birds. If it is slowed down to normal speed it will double the time. This is plenty of time for an abort. If the abort system survived that is. Amos is burning. A SRB is the only safe way to go and Musk can tow it back,and use parachutes. My answer to critics for the fiery chunks that would burn up the parachutes on abort, is to put a band of explosives around the bottom instead of the sides. The 500psi from inside wood blow the bottom off , stopping most of the thrust and directing debris away from the capsule. SLS has the same problem. NASA said they were going to see if there was a better way to destruct, but I have not heard anything. Sen. Nelson ought to trade his vote for Admin. for tests and system. Call it the CLS. Crew launch system. Everybody loves Musk, but safety is good politics also. There is time since the deadline for Crew to ISS is Fall ’19. I read that Musk is selling flame throwers. What’s next assault weapons? From The Boring Co. Or was that a Russian plant?
What kind of gibberish did I just read?
It may be gibberish to you. There are other people that understand it completely.
It makes no sense to talk about abort scenarios on a rocket with an unmanned cargo that does not have any abort capabilities whatsoever and no one (as far as I know) is even thinking about such a thing.
Also what do you mean by stating that an “SRB is the only safe way to go”? As an abort motor? Neither of the upcoming commercial crew vehicles will have solid abort motors. And it can be shown quite easily, that a Dragon V2 like abort system would have been able to escape from an AMOS 6 like scenario with ease.
Kudos for making it through that much gibberish without a machete.
Just more SpaceX bashing. Now that SpaceX is seen as a real threat to the pork flows to old space and Congress critters you will see more of it. Don’t be surprised if NASA decides one uncrewed test flight is not enough, they will want ten, no wait, a hundred, to prove Dragon is safer than the Soyuz or SLS/Orion…
Are you ok?
Interesting legal argument, though I think the defendants may be reaching a little. However contracts of insurance are based on risk, if one party can be shown not to have fully disclosed the risk they might have a case.
If I recall correctly, the explosion occurred during fueling prior to a static test. So while IAI is correct in the narrowest, technical sense that it did not take place while the engines were actually firing, fueling is obviously a necessary step before any static fire test can be performed, and could therefore be considered part of the static fire test procedure.
I expect that the outcome in the case will hinge upon the very specific wording of the insurance contract. Future Lloyd’s launch insurance contracts may specifically address fueling to avoid any ambiguity.
If I were buying launch insurance, I’d want to make sure I purchased enough insurance to cover all the necessary steps leading up to launch.
“Space law” looks an awful lot like normal law!
Sorry. I should have just said that the payload did not explode until it fell off and hit the ground. The rest was using the subject of the explosion to say some things I had come up with. I should just stick to the story I suppose.
From here on you can skip if you like. In another post I said that F9 could not be used for crew because there was no warning to trigger an abort. I thought that SRB would be better. It then came to me that the payload(AMOS) I had seen set there for for a second or 2 then tip over and fall to the ground and SpaceX said Crew would have survived. if that was Dragon instead of AMOS. They did not say how. So F9 could be used if the Crew survived and no damage to the abort system. What about shrapnel damage? I looked at the video of the explosion again to see if I could see damage to the fairing. But instead of 2 sec, until it falls over it is 10 sec. So no problem to have time to push an abort button. I then thought how did AMOS sit so long. I used full screen and looking through the flames I could see the F9 standing tall, strong enough to hold the payload for at least 10 sec. So why no damage when I thought the kerosene tank blew up? The helium tank blew out the LOX through a round port, which I saw when I checked before the video frame by frame, the tank stayed intact. The pressure from the LOX blew out the common bulkhead between tanks, the kerosene went over pressure and blew out another relief port. Spewing kerosene out. The tank stayed intact. So, AMOS and F9 sit there. AMOS fell over when the separation system fired and F9 fell over when support from the 1st stage failed.
Why was there no damage to the 2nd stage or payload? Because this was an unconstrained explosion and the payload was within the explosion. There was pressure from all directions. So my conclusion is that F9 could be used. But to eliminate all the above use an SRB which I wrote to the Science Committee and Sen. Nelson. I said that awhile back and got the usual from other commenters, They will explode, debris. There has never been an explosion except for a self destruct. Yes there will be flaming chunks of fuel all over and as was pointed out by a range officer in a SpaceRef article, they would hit the the capsule parachutes and burn them up with Ares-1. My solution was to put a band of explosives around the bottom and the pressure would blow it off, directing debris downward and away from the parachutes. I wrote my Sen. Nelson pointing all this out and suggesting he trade his vote for Brandenstine for a test of this destruct method and wishful thinking, replace F9 with SRB. LIke NGL.Cheaper and safer, in my opinion.
Space.com did have a story and video of him firing a flame thrower last weekend and said on the boring company website you can buy one for $500. This sounded so ridiculous, I thought Russia might have planted it. If true though an army has used flame throwers and assault weapons. If musk does make a Falcon SRB he could tow it back like he is doing the F9 that he landed on the water. If anybody is left, again I apologize. Any questions? I am quiet alright in answer to one question.
Huh.
On the original posting, I simply thought you were poking fun.
Well at least here you formulate your thoughts in a clear and concise way, in the original post your thoughts jumped from one topic to another so quickly that It wasn’t easy to follow.
But still, other than your opinion, what are your arguments that SRBs are cheaper and safer?
SRBs are only cheaper as long as you throw the rocket away. Once (fast) reusability comes into play, SRBs don’t stand a chance against liquid fueled rockets. You can’t just “re-fuel” an SRB and launch again the next day as SpaceX plans with F9 Block 5.
Strike that. I forgot that SRB can not be used for Crew because of they will be killed by large burning chunks of fuel burning the parachutes(SpaceRef, Ares-1). All that money spent on SLS and CST-100 and they will kill the Crew in an abort. I have since proven to myself that Dragon would not have been damaged in an explosion like the AMOS one. The one at the cape destroyed cars in the parking lot. Boeing, Mulholland was at one time was thinking about using F-9. I pointed out that CST-100 was too heavy for F-9 to launch. He went to Atlas with 2 Crew killing SRB. He has to order a later model F-9 that does have the ability. He seemed interested at the recent hearing. It is 100% certain the Crew will be killed in an SRB destruct. This has been known for 10 years and NASA, Boeing, ATK, O-ATK, L-M,Aerojet,A-R,Northrup,ULA have ignored it. Think about how many more fuel chunks will be generated by 2 5 segment on SLS compared to the destruct on small side boosters at the Cape. Carpet bombing. They should have went with Saturn-5. These people are crazy. It may be criminal.
I was Saturn13 back then. Keith Cowen at NASA watch was real upset and was banning people for not using there own names. I did the best I could with DISQUS. Once you sign in one place, you are signed in everywhere. Did any of you forget about that article too? Group denial maybe. I brought all of this up before.None of the Space writers has ever said anything about it. Right Doug?
SRB are generally unsuitable for human spaceflight because they are unable to be shut off and tend to burn unevenly at the end creating vibrations in the stack. Let’s not forget that the Challenger crew was killed by a malfunctioning SRB. Also they are much more expensive to refurbish for a second launch, a factor that contributed to the high costs of the Space Shuttle. And finally lets not forget how toxic they are to the environment. Every Shuttle launch was accompanied by a die off of marine life near the launch pad from the toxic gases from the Shuttle SRBs.
I agree with you, but NASA apparantly does not. Starliner will be launched on an Atlas V with smallish strap-on SRBs and Orion will be launched on SLS with quite large five segment SRBs strapped to the side and a smallish solid rocket as part of its launch escape system.
Dragon 2 is notable as the only currently planned manned US space capsule that will not have solids either in its launcher or on its launch escape system.
Did any of the preceding F9 launches have the payload attached for static fire? If so, then I don’t see how underwriters can claim lack of notice. If I am IAI I would argue that I don’t have to specifically notify underwriters of an event/risk that is common or known part of the procedure and risk profile
Am I correct that SpaceX changed its procedure after the Amos loss to mount the payload after static fire? Even if they did, it should not allow underwriter to reduce loss as underwriter should have been aware of the usual procedure. The fact that procedures were changed subsequent to the loss is irrelevant.