Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: SRB vs liquid
Message-ID: <471@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 14:50:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.471
Posted: Thu Feb  6 14:50:35 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:38:35 EST
References: <615@uwvax.UUCP> <3045@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Laboratory
Lines: 20

>
>Considering the near-legendary reliability of the all-solids Scout, I find
>this doubtful.  The only novelties about the shuttle SRBs, as far as I know,
>are their size and the fac that they are made out of segments instead of one
>piece; the latter has been suggested as contributory to the right SRB
>failure, but I don't see any reason to accept the allegation that solids are
>per se less reliable.
>
>After all, there is Ariane....


    What exactly is the configuration of Ariane?  I keep hearing that one
    of the stages is solid fueled, but a drawing printed in the Chicago
    Tribune shows three stages, all liquid fueled.

    Additionally, is there anything new and novel about the Ariane?  From
    what I have been able to gather, it seems to be pretty mundane rocket.
    It's major advantage seems to be that it is launched fairly near the 
    equator, and can put satellites out at GEO distances from the Earth.