|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Proton Only $48.7 Million
Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 8 Sep 2003 05:22:44 -0700, (Gunter Krebs) wrote: E - the russian launchers are reliable. Tell that to Express A1, Astra 1K, or Mars '96 people. Compared with comparable launchers ( 4 tons to GTO), Proton was near the top of the reliability list for the 1990-2002 period. It is especially interesting to compare $49 million Proton with the $300-$500 million Titan IV record. Both rockets are capable of putting satellites directly into geosync orbits - a more complex effort than the Ariane/Zenit/Long March GTO missions. Remember too that during the 1990s, Proton was flying while its country's infrastructure collapsed around it. ----------------------------------------------- Vehicle Successes/Attempts Bayesian Predicted Reliability ----------------------------------------------- Ariane 4 106/109 0.97 Proton 108/116 0.92 Titan IV 29/33 0.86 Ariane 5 10/14 0.69 Zenit 2/3 24/29 0.81 H-II(A) 9/11 0.77 CZ-3B 4/5 0.71 ----------------------------------------------- - Ed Kyle |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Proton Only $48.7 Million
"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" wrote in message ...
ed kyle a écrit dans le message : ... ----------------------------------------------- Vehicle Successes/Attempts Bayesian Predicted Reliability ----------------------------------------------- Ariane 4 106/109 0.97 Proton 108/116 0.92 Titan IV 29/33 0.86 Ariane 5 10/14 0.69 Disagree on that one. Ariane 5 failed 3 times ( 2.5, if you want to be pedantic; Artemis was saved ), not 4, which make it 11/14 or 0.79. Still not great, especially as it was supposed to be man-rated, and the quoted reliability figure was 0.995.... ( I suppose you were considering 502 a failure, which I don't ). Yep. I've never liked the "partial success" concept - especially when it came to space launch reliability records. I use the same cold definition that the launch insurance underwriters use. Either the launcher put the payload where it was supposed to go (within a predetermined limit), or it didn't. If it did, it succeeded. If it didn't, it failed. I consider Saturn 502 a failure, for example. Ariane 502 developed a roll torque created by the core stage Vulcain engine that caused the vehicle to spin up to 5.5 rmp. This pushed propellant away from the feed sump, causing the engine to shut down 10-20 seconds early. The second stage attempted to compensate, but the qualification payloads were still left about 9000 km short of their target GTO apogee. Ariane 510 was even worse. Its second stage shut down 80 seconds early, stranding Artemis and BSat-2b about 18,000 km short of the target GTO apogee. It doesn't matter that Artemis was saved. That was a happy result in a of itself, but it doesn't change the fact that the launcher failed. In addition, BSat-2b was not saved. Ariane 5 has had its troubles, but I think it will turn out to be more reliable than Proton in the long run. - Ed Kyle |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Delta II for $56.M
It's discouraging to look at the analyses up this thread. There is
however, something odd here. Namely, why don't we see similar nitty-gritty analyses of cost and return from our military and armaments industries? Cheers -- Martha Adams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cheap access to space - majority opinion | Cameron Dorrough | Technology | 15 | June 27th 04 03:35 AM |
Boeing Awarded $9.2 Million to Process Radar Data from Space Shuttle Endeavour | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 8th 03 05:39 PM |
Boeing Awarded $9.2 Million to Process Radar Data from Space Shuttle Endeavour | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 8th 03 11:53 AM |
Delta IV Out as Potential X-37 Launcher? | ed kyle | Policy | 37 | August 25th 03 08:54 PM |
SPACEHAB Declared Finalist On $100 Million Space Station Contract | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | August 15th 03 07:21 PM |