| Title: | Space Exploration |
| Notice: | Shuttle launch schedules, see Note 6 |
| Moderator: | PRAGMA::GRIFFIN |
| Created: | Mon Feb 17 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 974 |
| Total number of notes: | 18843 |
Associated Press Thu 31-OCT-1985 14:18 Satellite Insurance
Insurors Say Future of Satellite Policies Looks Gloomy
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Witnesses painted a gloomy picture Thursday
for the future of the satellite insurance business, which has paid
off more than $600 million in claims in 21 months, a sum twice the
amount it collected in premiums.
``Because of the tremendous underwriting losses that have
occurred, particularly within the past two years, there is a grave
risk that the insurance industry may abandon its participation in
the space effort,'' Robert J. Tirone, an insurance executive, told
a congressional subcommittee.
Many underwriters have already withdrawn completely from the
market, he said, and others have restricted the amount of insurance
they will commit.
He said, as an example, that the space shuttle might carry three
satellites on a single mission and that the owners will want
insurance of $100 million to $150 million for each.
``The most generous guess in today's insurance marketplace is
that there is at most only $75 million total capacity available to
insure this potential $450 million mission,'' said Tirone, of the
New York firm of Alexander and Alexander.
He said NASA should assume the risk for satellites until they
leave the shuttle cargo bay, set quality standards for the rockets
that boost satellites to their high orbits and act as a fact finder
in the event a satellite is lost.
The House space science subcommittee concluded two days of
hearings into the insurance problem as part of a series on the
future of space commercialization. The Senate, too, has insurance
hearings planned.
``Since February 1984, losses totaling approximatrely $633
million have occurred,'' A. Michael Hewins, vice president of
Johnson & Higgins, testified. ``Because of the losses, underwriters
have increased launch insurance rates from a low, in 1983, of 5
percent of the sum insured to current predictions of 30 percent.''
The insurance executives acknowledged that rates were set too
low in the past, because of their lack of experience with a limited
market. Hewins referred to comments that if a satellite owner can't
afford insuranc, he ought not to be in the business.
``This may have been a tenable view with five percent rates,''
Hewins told the subcommittee. ``But the predicted 30 percent rates
may be prohibitive to some companies faced with a $100 million
project cost.''
He said that even without another loss, the space insurance
market can't see profit for at least the next two years, in which
44 satellite are to be put into orbit in 31 launches.
With a maximum coverage of $100 million per launch and premiums
at 30 percent, Hewins said, the volume would be $900 million, which
he said is ``only one-third more than the losses currently in the
market.''
And, he added, ``No one would give odds on the probability of
three loss-free years.
James W. Barrett, president of International Technology
Underwriters, was opposed to the government assuming any of the
insurance risk.
``In my view, there is no role for government to play in this
commercial market,'' Barrett said. ``As a taxpayer, I'm not
enthusiastic about the idea of subsidizing a purely commercial
venture.''
Insurance, he said, ``cannot compensate for unacceptable levels
of reliability. ... If space manufacturers improve reliability, the
insurance market will be there to facilitate space
commercialization.''
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96.1 | RANI::AUGERI | Thu Nov 07 1985 17:04 | 7 | ||
I think the best thing that could happen would be for the insurance companies to not offer insurance or make the rates unacceptably high. Then the satellite manufacturers and their subcontracters would be forced to improve the reliability of their product if they want to stay in business. I definitely don't want the government to accept the liability. Mike | |||||
| 96.2 | SAUTER::SAUTER | Thu Nov 14 1985 09:43 | 4 | ||
Although I agree with .1, I do think it is reasonable for NASA to
lead the investigation of why a satellite is lost. The National
Transportation Safety Board is a good model for this kind of activity.
John Sauter
| |||||
| 96.3 | Perseids meteor shower a threat to satellites? | VERGA::KLAES | Life, the Universe, and Everything | Wed May 26 1993 16:05 | 127 |
Article: 36767 From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: August Meteor Shower May Threaten Earth Satellites Date: 26 May 1993 03:24 UT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory PRESS NOTICE FROM ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY NEWS AND INFORMATION SERVICE PHONE AND FAX+44 223 355 924 (GREAT BRITAIN) EMAIL TO JMITTON <[email protected]> Date: 17 May 1993 Ref. PN 93/4 Issued by: Dr Jacqueline Mitton RAS Public Relations Officer FAX & Tel. Cambridge (0223) 355924 Astronomers warn of danger to artificial satellites in August meteor shower. Two astronomers from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, are warning of the potential danger to orbiting artificial satellites if the Earth runs into a dense clump of meteoroid particles streaming through space during the Perseid meteor shower this coming August. Writing in the 1 June issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Drs Martin Beech and Peter Brown point out a combination of circumstances that increases the probability of a damaging impact on a large satellite, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, to a level that is not negligable. At the same time, observers may be treated to an exceptional meteor display in the early hours of 12 August. The Perseid meteor shower is one of the most prominent of the regular annual showers, peaking on about 12 August each year. Like all meteor showers, it takes place when the Earth in its orbit round the Sun crosses through a stream of meteoroid particles. Bright meteors, or 'shooting stars', result when the meteoroids burn up in the Earth's upper atmosphere. It has been known for a long time that the Perseid meteoroids come from the periodic Comet SwiftTuttle and are scattered all around the comet's orbit. Comet SwiftTuttle takes about 135 years to go round the Sun and made one of its rare returns to the vicinity of the Earth and the inner solar system at the end of last year. Over the last few years, meteor watchers have noticed an enhanced activity peak in the Perseids lasting for about one hour. Material ejected recently from the comet appears to be responsible. This year, the Earth will cross the Perseid meteoroid stream behind the comet when it has not long passed our way. Peter Brown noticed that the circumstances of this encounter will be very similar to the ones that produced the spectacular Leonid meteor storms of 1966 and 1833. Beech and Brown reckon that the likelihood of an enhanced display from the Perseids this August is therefore high, though there is the usual note of caution since the exact distribution of dust particles in the wake of the comet is not known. Their best guess is that an outburst will begin at about 1 a.m. GMT (2 a.m. BST) on 12 August. Martin Beech said, " We do not know how strong the Perseid meteor storm may be or how long it will last, if it occurs, so we haver based out arguments on previous Leonid and Draconid meteor storms." "The idea that satellite damage may occur became clear once we are able to derive a value for the number of 'large' meteoroids (that is, weighing several micrograms or more) that may encounter the Earth during a Perseid storm. There has not been a spectacular meteor storm since 1966 when the space age had hardly begun, so we thought it was worth trying to speculate on possible damage." The impact probability for a typical communications satellite is small but, given the large number of such objects in Earth orbit, the possibility of one being damaged is reasonably high. Larger satellites, like the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), have higher impact probabilities. Beech and Brown note, for example, that the probability of the HST being struck by a Perseid meteoroid during a storm that lasts for about 15 minutes is the same is its being struck by a one-metre-sized object in a 17-year period: 0.1 per cent. "The satellite impact probabilities we find are certainly small, but are not negligable", says Martin Beech. "Given the uncertainty in our knowledge of the Perseid stream structure near the nucleus of Comet SwiftTuttle, our results could be out by a factor of ten either way. We shall have to wait and see what happens." Martin Beech and Peter Brown will be travelling to Europe in the hope of observing the Perseids. They will be joining a group of observers from the International Meteor Organization at Puimichel in the Alpes de Haute Provence. ******************************************************** Contacts for further information: Dr Martin Beech Dept. of Astronomy, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada. Tel 519-474-1062, FAX 519-474-1207, E-mail [email protected]. Dr Peter Brown Dept. of Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada. Tel 519-679-211, ext. 6358, E-mail [email protected]. ******************************************************** Notes 1. A typical Perseid meteoroid that produces a visible meteor of magnitude 2.5 has a mass of around 2.5 micrograms and a velocity of order 60 kilometres per second. Such a meteoroid would inflict severe damage a crater of 5 cm diameter has been estimated if it struck an artificial satellite. 2. The observed activity of a meteor shower is measured in terms of 'Zenithal Hourly Rate' (ZHR). The normal peak ZHR of the Perseids is around 100. The Leonid storm in November 1966 had a ZHR of 100,000 for a period of 2040 minutes. ******************************************************** ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | [email protected] | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | | |||||
| 96.4 | Did he say MICRO? | VMSDEV::HALLYB | Fish have no concept of fire | Thu May 27 1993 13:51 | 7 |
> 1. A typical Perseid meteoroid that produces a visible meteor of
> magnitude 2.5 has a mass of around 2.5 micrograms and a velocity of
2.5 micrograms? At 60km/s anything packs quite a wallop, but this
doesn't seem possible.
John
| |||||
| 96.5 | Did I do this right? | SKYLAB::FISHER | Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent | Fri May 28 1993 10:35 | 14 |
I get (60000m/s)� * .00000000025kg .9 kg*(m/s)� = .9 Newton-meter = .9 joules. If that energy is dissipated in the atomosphere in a flash .1 seconds long, then the rate of power flow is 9 Watts. I agree, that does not seem right. You could hardly see a 9-watt bulb hundreds of kilometers away. Unless it is a lot shorter a flash than .1 seconds. Of course, from another point of view, if it smashed into a satellite it could generate a very high temperature in a very short time. I suppose hitting a vulnerable spot could cause a problem. Burns | |||||
| 96.6 | TROOA::BALDOCK | Chris Baldock | Fri May 28 1993 15:07 | 36 | |
The two astronomers mentioned in the article are members of
our local astronomy club (the London Centre of the R.A.S.C.).
They are meteorite fanatics. If you remember last Fall a
bright fireball passed over the eastern part of the US. It was
a Friday night which, as I understand it, is a very popular
night for holding high school football games. The fireball was
captured on videotape by numerous people and news-teams (who
are people too, I guess) filming the games. Both Peter and
Martin spent the next couple of months trying to track down
everyone in the US who captured the spectacle on tape so they
could calculate its orbit.
Last month they gave a talk to our club about the possibilities
for this year's Perseid meteor shower. They gave two predictions
(based on observations of the "double peak" found in the
Perseid stream over the last couple of years) of when the best
time to observe will be. (I'm sorry I don't have the times
right now but I will post them before the big day. They
should also appear in an upcoming issue of Sky & Telescope).
If the peak occurs at the first time North America will miss
out entirely. This is why Peter and Martin are planning
a trip to southern France. If the peak occurs at the second
time there is a good chance that eastern North America will
see something. However, the radiant will be very low in the
north-east at this time with the peak occurring shortly after
sunset.
I was talking to Peter today and he said some people at NASA are
starting to take notice. There is talk of moving the Hubble
Space telescope into a safer orbit during the predicted
hours of peak activity.
Chris
| |||||
| 96.7 | TROOA::BALDOCK | Chris Baldock | Fri May 28 1993 15:09 | 24 | |
After taling to Peter he informed me that there were a number
of errors in the press release. I asked him to send me a note
on the corrections. See below.
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris,
Thanks for the note. The mass should be "milligrams" NOT "micrograms".
Also the duration of the storms should be 2000 seconds, not 2040 minutes.
Also, Martin and I do not have Phd's (no Dr's out front of all the names).
These are (I think) the major errors (not including obvious typos.
regards...Peter
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA18358; Fri, 28 May 93 07:15:32 -0700
% Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 13:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Subject: RE: Perseid Meteor Shower
% To: trooa::baldock
% X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"[email protected]"
| |||||
| 96.8 | SKYLAB::FISHER | Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent | Fri May 28 1993 17:54 | 3 | |
Aha. A 9000-watt flash. That makes more sense. Burns | |||||
| 96.9 | Let's hope it doesn't happen | AUSSIE::GARSON | nouveau pauvre | Fri May 28 1993 23:38 | 13 |
re .5
Kinetic Energy is �mv� so I think you are a factor of 2 high.
I looked at it slightly differently. 2.5E-6g at 60km/s has the same K.E.
as 2.5g at 60m/s i.e. 2.5g at 216km/hr. That seemed marginal to me.
Would that do serious damage or not? Now apply the correction which
multiplies the mass by 1000 and you get 2.5kg at 216km/hr which seems
decidedly unhealthy.
What this analysis doesn't take into account is that the smaller, faster
object is able to concentrate its impact more effectively and thus is
more penetrating.
| |||||