From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on Launchers
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 06 Oct 92  23:10:32

Hi Josh!
  
>I will happily use those if you can provide me with them or an
>accurate place to find them.
   Let me look through my files.  I try to keep current on such data
-- although I have had less time this past year to keep them up to
date.  I use the prices quoted from current launch competitions.  I
haven't had the time to update a full listing for about a year, and
it's about time I recompiled my list.
   For a source for accurate information, I would recommend calling/
writing the launch service providers and asking for such a quote --
single launch to 150 nmi circular, 28.5 deg inclination, payment
over 24 months prior to launch, total price in 1994$, standard
launch services (including .....), no insurance, standard pad &
range charges (including ....).  You might also try one of the space
insurance firms or the US DoT Office of Commercial Space
Transportation. If you want, I can provide you the names and
addresses to write.
  
>>   Secondly, same comments apply to reliability.  If you do quote
>>a reliability number, quote the time period, number of launches
>>and vehicle type the reliability is shown for.
  
>I thought I made this fairly clear.  The reliability number is a
>fraction with the total number of launches on the bottom.  All
>known launches/failures are included for each vehicle family at the
>top of the section and individual types farther down.  The time
>period is from Sputnik through December 1990.  Did I fail make this
>clear in the introduction, or am I making a mistake somewhere?
  
   Sorry Josh, perhaps I misinterpreted this.  I will confess I
quickly scanned your article, rather than trying to decipher your
format which had become scrambled in transmission.
   From my quick scan of your scrambled posting, what caused that
comment was, for example, you show reliability for the Atlas
variants, but don't include the ICBM variant which had a significant
number of test launches in the 1957-1974 time period (Classes
A,B,C,D,E and F).  Some of the Atlas ICBM vehicles (particularly D,
E, F classes) are virtually identical to the space launchers of the
same class.  IRGSLS only includes orbital launch attempts, although
some sources also include these near-orbital attempts in overall
system reliability assessments. (Note: The Atlas D,E,F vehicles do
not leave their payloads in a sustainable orbit and require the
payload to perform the circularization burn.  This is why there is
some difference of opinion in including the ICBM version in
reliability assessments, since it basically flew the same trajectory
and mission profile.  And a similar discussion can be extended to
the Titan family (particularly the Titan II), the Europa/Ariane, the
ASLV/Agni, and some of the ex-Soviet systems.)
   Also, some of the failures included in IRGSLS are upper stage
failures which may/may not be part of the launch needs and in which
a failure should/should not be booked against the launcher.  (I'm
not sure of the methodology Steve used in assessing a failure to the
launcher, but the insurance folks treat it as a separate failure,
due to liability concerns).
   But yes, your above wording is much clearer.  If you are using
IRGSLS, then that data is pretty self consistent.  (I've got some
more current data at work from a space insurance actuarial firm
which provides some different interpretations -- but would not be
consistent with the rest of the data.)
  
>I didn't include ones I knew no longer launch (with the possible
>exception of the ASLV, that one slipped my mind).  If I missed one,
>please let me know.  I included data on H-2 and Ariane V because I
>didn't think they were likely to change much between now and first
>flight.  I probably shouldn't have included the PSLV and GSLV
>though.
   Hmmmm.... under that constraint (essentially having completed the
majority of the development program) you should probably also
include the Conestoga/COMET and the IMI Orbital Express, since they
now have signed near-term launch contracts.  The PSLV is also pretty
far along in development -- I was reading about a successful engine
test they just completed -- and you might also include the MS-J
which is pretty far along in Japan, and both essentially have
customers for initial flights.
  
>Thanks for the input.
   You're welcome.  Hopefully the comments are useful.  I hope I can
find the time to come up with better cost data in the next week or
two.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor
  

--- Maximus 2.00