Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Message-ID: <1298@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 19:13:46 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.1298
Posted: Mon Dec 30 19:13:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 04:29:06 EST
References: <8512040335.AA22626@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 52

> I see no evidence that launching people with a satellite increases
> the launch reliability.
> It is at this stage that three failures
> have occured (the two PAM failures and the IUS failure with the TDRS
> satellite).

It should be noted that NONE of these has resulted in a complete loss
of the satellite.  The PAM failures were followed by recovery of
the satellites and TDRS eventually got to its final orbit.  Also, the
LEASAT failure not mentioned here was followed by a repair mission which
resulted in a fully operational satellite in the proper orbit.  Although
not launched by the shuttle, the Solar Max mission was saved by a 
shuttle repair.  By contrast, all Ariane failures have resulted in 
complete loss of the entire payload.  And there have been a lot of failures.

> 
> There is a difference between the reliability needed for carrying people
> and the reliability needed for economic launchers.  For example,
> launching a $100 million satellite on a booster with a 5% chance of
> catastrophic failure is acceptable; the insurance costs will be a small
> fraction of launch costs.

Failure rates for the Ariane are more like 20% (top of the head, please
check the figure) and insurance rates are hitting about 20% too.  In one
case this led to an uninsured launch (on the shuttle).

> launch high-energy upper stages using LH/LOX fuel is causing
> big headaches.  The Centaur upper stage used with Gallileo is
> having safety problems and may delay that mission for a while.

Any time you do something new you have headaches.  So what?  Let's
just wait and see if it works.

> But... I suspect that if the shuttle hadn't been developed the aerospace
> companies would have gone to work improving their expendable boosters,

Most of the aerospace industries business is military.  NASA work is
a drop in the bucket.  They probably would simply have built more
killing machines.

> 
> DOD apparently isn't constrained to justify the shuttle.  In fact, there
> have been reports (in Science last year, for example) that
> the DOD was concerned about the shuttle's poor reliability and
> potential for catastrophic failure, and wanted to develop an interim
> expendable booster (NASA was horrified; I don't know if the idea has
> died).

The idea is alive and kicking.  NASA was molified by an agreement whereby
DOD pays for shuttle use regardless of whether it actually uses the
shuttle or not.  With Abrahamson (sp?) running SDI (he used to run
shuttle) though, I suspect DOD will get a lot of use out of the shuttle.