Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!serre
From: serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs
Summary: Titan figures aren't quite right.
Message-ID: <29231@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 5 Nov 90 15:36:27 GMT
References: <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: serre@tramp.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: tramp.colorado.edu

In article <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes:
>issue with HLVs.  Let us assume a HLV with a reliability of 95%  - a 
>bit higher than the current Titan fleet with about 80 launches, and 
Nits and trivia:
Actually, the Titan fleet's reliability is a bit more that 95%.  The
advertised rate is 96.something%.  Also, depending on which Titan III versions
you count, the total number of launches could be said to be over 100.  (I'd 
guess that you're counting only the versions with SRMs attached).  I'd also
like to point out that the Titan IV is 2 for 2, making for a 100% success 
rate :-). 

Question:  
Do Shuttle payloads require insurance?

Points:
Note that the payload costs given for classified satellites imply that the 
Air Force is probably not really that interested in cheap boosters.  

Also, note that there's no reason to think that reusable boosters are any more
reliable than expendables, notwithstanding Mr. Larrison's preference for 
reusables.  


--Glenn Serre
serre@tramp.colorado.edu