serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) (11/05/90)
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
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (11/06/90)
In article <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: > So what was the real replacement cost of a lost shuttle mission? >Replacement costs are orbiter (assume $1.5 billion), lost ET, lost >SRBs, lost SSMEs. ET costs are in the vicinity of $25 M. SRB cases >(not the propellent) are about $25 M per shipset (two complete sets >of segments and components). SSMEs are more expensive - a shipset of >SSMEs costs about $150 M. Total of about $1.7 B. Which is about >1/2 of the "3,000,000,000.00" being bandied around. I have a question (not an assertion): When the next shuttle accident occurs, what will be the likelihood that the disaster will result from another generic flaw that grounds the program for an extended period? The MTTR (mean time to repair) is probably an important (hypothetical) statistic to consider with shuttle accidents. The money spent to sustain an idle program during the repair interim might be considered a legitimate part of "replacement cost". Also, the time value of idle assets should be taken into account (i.e., all the expensive hardware that takes a two-year vacation). If NASA can recover from the next shuttle disaster within a few months, and keep up with its launch commitments, then the cost for the lost shuttle is roughly its purchase price. But if the program goes down for 2 years, the overall loss is probably far in excess of the purchase price of the shuttle. -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
n8035388@unicorn.wwu.edu (Worth Henry A) (11/06/90)
>In article <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: > >I have a question (not an assertion): > >When the next shuttle accident occurs, what will be the likelihood >that the disaster will result from another generic flaw that grounds >the program for an extended period? > Even if the accident is unrelated to any generic flaw, expect the fleet to be grounded for at least six months while various review boards and Congress (opps, nearly forgot the press) determine the probable cause; depends a lot on how long it takes everyone to reach a concensous. Additionally, even if it is determined that the accident was unrelated to any generic flaw, the review process would likely result in "safety upgrades" that would result in further delays. There is also a very real possibility that the resulting political firestorm would result in the permanent grounding of the fleet. :-( Our pioneer ancestors must think us such ungrateful wimps, to simply survive, yet alone carve out a nation, they faced more risk on a regular basis than we are prepared to allow a few informed volunteers to face today -- despite the potential gain, despite the infrequency, despite mankind's instinctive need to explore and pioneer.