Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs!pstinson
From: pstinson@pbs.org
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: launch rates
Message-ID: <10209.26ff5e6c@pbs.org>
Date: 25 Sep 90 17:41:00 GMT
References: <10195.26fde341@pbs.org> <1990Sep25.033816.16652@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 14

In article <1990Sep25.033816.16652@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>  -- Apollo 9, in early 1969, was the first Saturn V launch that was
> considered a "production" launch, not encumbered by major debugging work
> on KSC facilities and equipment -- and post-1969 launches were slowed down
> by the Apollo 13 accident (which is why there was only one in 1970)
And STS-5 was the first comparable launch in the Shuttle proram.  STS-1 through
STS-4 were billed as test flights and were encumbered by revamping of KSC
facilities.   Shuttle launches had to recover from Challenger (which is why
there weren't any launches in 1987.)  Shuttle went through the same stuff Saturn
V did.   You can not argue away the Shuttle's better performance as compared to
Saturn V by claiming extenuating circumstances.  I made no allowances when I
compiled the Shuttle launch figures and I see no reason why I should have with
the Saturn V data.  I treated them both the same.