Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dg!dg-rtp.dg.com!ahughes
From: ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: launch rates
Message-ID: <1002@dg.dg.com>
Date: 26 Sep 90 16:08:53 GMT
References: <10195.26fde341@pbs.org> <1990Sep25.033816.16652@zoo.toronto.edu> <10209.26ff5e6c@pbs.org>
Sender: root@dg.dg.com
Reply-To: ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 35

In article <10209.26ff5e6c@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs.org writes:
|> 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.


It also appears that you counted the last Challenger launch in '86 
in the statistics.  Perhaps once it clears the tower and is handed 
off to Houston it counts as a launch, regardless of flight duration?

Another interesting calculation might be total weight (of cargo)
put into orbit versus the number (or cost) of the launches.