Yeah, the 2017 looks pretty killer with the full bench in the back and all. But yeah, I love my 2013.

Yeah, my only beef is that the back row of seats is pretty much there for show and emergencies. Granted, I’m a tall guy, but when I sit up front, there’s basically no leg room behind me. Certainly not a deal breaker for my needs, but I like you, had a Toyota before this (A matrix) and coming from that thing,(which was…

But are they going to open the Tesla Charger network to third parties if they want to adopt the standard? If so (And it does seem likely they would) it’s a brilliant move on their part.

Still with the international support for CHAdeMO as the fast charge standard, Its an uphill battle.

I can’t say I’ve driven a Tesla, but I own a Volt, and I have to say that I think Chevy makes a good electric Car. Obviously, Tesla is freaking Tesla, and I doubt I would trade one in for a Chevy if I had one but based on the Volt, I think the Bolt is gonna be pretty decent.

Rockets occasionally blow up, and that’s really the least of your worries in the satellite business. If you haven’t prepared for that possibility, you aren’t ready to operate an orbital asset.

Star Wars ships have shields...just saying.

In engineering we call that a “Thermal Event”

I think you are correct.

Well there you go. Thanks for the source. Damn. runnign a static fire test without any insurance? that’s a doozy of an oversight.

SpaceX launch insurance, as I recently read, starts at ignition, but thats not the only policy in effect. The owner of the payload also has it insured basically from the point it leaves their possession onward, as you do with pretty much any asset worth that much.

Though the fact that Facebook gets it’s money back,…

Probably. Depends. I’m hearing that launch insurance doesnt kick in because it was during test, not launch, but most payloads are covered by pre-launch insurance to cover accidents in fueling/testing/vehicle integration, but those could well be Facebook policies. who knows. All I’m saying is it;s a good bet someone is…

Could you shoot me a link then? I haven’t seen it. I’ve heard the opposite, in fact. Namely that SpaceX’s insurer was pissed that they decided to start loading payloads before testing to slim the prep time. Sounds to me like they specifically negotiated insurance for such a case early this year.

I’m seeing that launch…

Where have you been reading that? I’m not doubting you, it’s just that this would be a very unusual move. Payloads are at extreme risk on the pad, especially during fueling,and ground failures are a well known phenomenon. I have never heard of a payload that wasn’t insured for ground operations.

About 20 firms worldwide.

They do it for a reason. You put a tons of kerosene under a huge tank of pure oxygen at temperatures cold enough to embrittle metal, shit often goes Boom. nobody ever said Rocket Science was easy.

Also true. But either way, As has been pointed out, they may be insured for the cost of replacement and launch, but the time lost on such a speculative project in such a fast paced market is probably where facebook will feel this the most.

True, but I would, as you did, call that a loss of payload, not a loss of the LV. If we’re talking about catastrophic vehicle failure, (And I’ll admit this is going by dead reckoning here, so I could well be wrong. I worked on RCS’s, not LV’s) You see that more during ground, and in particular fueling operations.

Either…

nah. as many, if not more, rockets blow on the pad than in the air. Payloads are almost always insured for loss during ground operations. I mean maybe Facebook was playing fast and loose with that standard practice, but I doubt it.

ah, yeah. too late to add the “And” in there.

Where did you read that? It’s almost always the payload that is insured not the launch event. More LV’s are lost on the ground than in the air. Unless Facebook was playing absurdly fast and loose with their insurance (Which may well be the case, but I’ve seen no evidence of it) then It’s safe to assume that they were,…