"Ed Kyle" writes:

As I wrote previously, insurance trade publications
have listed the Apstar 5 flight as a launch vehicle
failure.
"www.airclaims.com/Downloads/PressReleases/SpaceLauncherYear2004.pdf"

Did the insurance company actually *pay out any money* for Apstar 5?

If not they are talking out of both sides of their mouth (traditional
for insurance). They count it as a failure when justifying their rates,
but I'll bet my bottom dollar they count it as a success when counting
their profits.

Lou Scheffer

P.S. In some hypothetical rational world, satellites with large performance
margins (propulsion, power) would get better insurance rates, since they can
recover from a wider variety of problems without adverse effects. Anyone
know if this is the case?