Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!ITI.ORG!aws
From: aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)
Message-ID: <9011061721.AA24422@iti.org>
Date: 6 Nov 90 17:21:37 GMT
References: <44579@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 38

In article <44579@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>:
>>>How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station?  
>>+Put a capsule on a Delta.

>Is LNLL sure the Delta can be made man-rated? Cheaply? 

LLNL has no intention of man-rating whatever launchers they use. Since
the operational record of Titan and Delta is better than the Shuttle's
operational record and about equal to outside estimates of Shuttle
reliability there seems little point. Man rating adds cost but doesn't
add reliability.

>Just throwing a
>capsule on top of a Delta doesn't sound particularly safe. I know
>Delta has a great launch record, but I doubt it was ever designed
>for manned-flight.

If the vibration load on the crew isn't too bad, why not?

Consider two hypothetical launchers. One man rated which kills about
10% of the crews who fly on it in 100 flights. Another is not man-
rated and kills about 5% of the crews who fly on it in 100 flights.
Which would you rather fly on?

Now suppose that in 100 flights two other launch vehicles kill ~2%
of their crews (again, one is man-rated and the other isn't). The
man rated one costs four times as much to fly as the non rated one.
Which would you rather fly (assuming you are paying for the ticket)?

I myself would fly the non man-rated launcher in both cases.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   aws@iti.org  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |