MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1413247945 · doi:10.1089/space.2015.0007

All-Electric Satellites: Insurance Implications

2015· article· en· W1413247945 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Space · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeostationary orbitPayload (computing)SatelliteOrbit (dynamics)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The significant mass reduction of an all-electric satellite compared to a chemically propelled satellite with the same payload, or the ability to include a larger payload for the same launch mass, will reduce transponder prices and ensure that satellite solutions remain competitive against terrestrial alternatives. The major disadvantage of all-electric satellites is the time it takes to reach geostationary orbit, which could be a number of months, even under nominal operations. Traditional space insurance policies include a provision such that a satellite can be declared a total loss if it does not reach geostationary orbit within a predefined number of days. For chemically propelled satellites that require a handful of impulsive burns to complete the transfer to GEO, such a loss is relatively easy to determine, and for a situation, for example, where a satellite is delivered short of its intended apogee, the quantum of a loss, or whether it is worth proceeding with the orbit-raising maneuvers, can be determined with confidence, relatively quickly. The situation for all-electric satellites will be different. For all-electric satellites it may be possible to overcome launch shortfalls or certain propulsion system failure scenarios by increasing the duration of the orbit-raising phase. Satellite insurance policies cover the value of the space asset, which for a newly launched satellite would usually mean the replacement cost of the satellite, the replacement cost of the launch service, and the cost of the insurance—the three main costs in any satellite project. Insurance does not usually cover the revenue that the satellite is expected to generate. While the traditional satellite insurance policies have served satellite operators well, there are failure scenarios for all-electric satellites, which only reduce the level of redundancy, for example, but which could result in a significant increase in the duration of orbit raising. The increased duration of orbit raising will result in a financial impact for the satellite operator due to the loss of revenue associated with the delayed entry into service, but would not be covered by a traditional satellite insurance policy. This article will consider, from an insurance perspective, the implications of moving to all-electric propulsion and suggest ways in which the satellite insurance coverage may need to be adapted to ensure satellite operators continue to be indemnified for the risks they face.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it