Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Skeptical Shuttle Enquirer
Message-ID: <1991Apr9.221533.22814@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 22:15:33 GMT
References: <910@idacrd.UUCP> <1991Apr9.172200.13427@zoo.toronto.edu> <HESKETT.91Apr9154409@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <HESKETT.91Apr9154409@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes:
>It does seem to me, however, that a significantly higher percentage of
>failures have occured among satellites lofted by the Shuttle, compared
>with those lofted by expendable boosters...

I think it is fair to say that a significantly higher percentage of
*highly publicized* failures have occurred among satellites lofted by
the shuttle.  I'd want to take a long hard look at the numbers before
saying anything more specific about actual reliability.  Things like
TVSat 1 (stuck solar array, satellite a writeoff), Superbird A (fuel
lost overboard; writeoff), and the big Intelsat (stranded due to Titan
wiring error; shuttle rescue planned) are significant counterexamples,
even though they don't get the same media attention.
-- 
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
