![]() |
Peter47
I wouldn't want to put a satellite on an untested rocket but perhaps they got a special rate. Edit to add that for once my memory wasn't playing tricks: https://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/...7/cavall87.htm " 'A free demonstration flight on Ariane-5 should therefore be considered ..........................................." and much further down the page: "Conclusion All in all then, there was nothing so extra-ordinary about the ESA decision to fly the Cluster mission on Ariane-501, especially given the great emphasis on cost savings to which the mission was subjected throughout its development. Of course, with the luxury of twenty-twenty hindsight, we all might have taken different decisions along the way.":bored: |
Originally Posted by Peter47
(Post 11367351)
Going slightly off topic, I have just been reading about how NASA "Man rated" rockets at the start of the space age, that is made them safe enough to carry humans. ICBM launchers such as Atlas had a terrible record. We know about the Challenger disaster but I cannot think of a fatal accident to a Western austronaut from a launch from a conventional rocket (admittedly there have not been many, although Soyuz has been used quite a bit for the ISS). My questions are:
How expensive is getting this level of reliability? Given the cost of satellites, would it be worthwhile "man rating" launchers? Presumambly someone such as an insurance underwriter, has done the sums and concluded that it isn't. Obviously the rocket is still in development and you wouldn't expect it to be as reliable as Saturn or Soyuz became (and they certainly had problems - look at Apollo 6). Musk & Bezos have had their accidents. I wouldn't want to put a satellite on an untested rocket but perhaps they got a special rate. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:30. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.