Xref: utzoo sci.space:4475 sci.space.shuttle:506
Path: utzoo!linus!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!tolerant!sci!auspyr!aussjo!ausmelb!mulga!munnari!otc!metro!ipso!stcns3!dave
From: dave@stcns3.stc.oz (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable?
Message-ID: <217@stcns3.stc.oz>
Date: 28 Jan 88 00:28:39 GMT
Reply-To: dave@stcns3.stc.oz (Dave Horsfall)
Organization: STC Pty Ltd, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Lines: 18

An article in "Electronics Australia" Jan 88 talks about Aussat 3, and
starts off with saying that Aussat 3 was launched by Arianespace, as
distinct from the previous two which were shuttle-launched.

Then follows this statement:  "The choice of Arianespace followed the
consideration of various economic factors, including the longer life
expectancy of a rocket-launched satellite compared with that of a
shuttle-deployed satellite."

Forgive me if this has been hashed over before, but that statement
does sound a little odd.  Are shuttle-deployed satellites really less
reliable than rocket-launched ones?  How come?

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)      ACS:  dave@stcns3.stc.OZ.AU
STC Pty Ltd                 ARPA: dave%stcns3.stc.OZ.AU@uunet.UU.NET
11th Floor, 5 Blue St       UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}!\
North Sydney NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA    munnari!stcns3.stc.OZ.AU!dave