[amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 (was Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal))

[George Henry]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rocky Jones" <orbitjet at hotmail.com>
To: <ke9v at sdf.lonestar.org>; "Amsat BB" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:30 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)


>
> Jeff...
>
>
>>
>> Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could
>> have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
>
> nope.
>
> OK anyone has a statistical chance of dying or any project has a 
> statistical chance of failing but the more complex a project is the more 
> likely it is to fail...and AO-40 as it grew more complex needed larger 
> size which then needed a more powerful rocket engine...which ...


The explosion on AO-40 had NOTHING to do with the size of the motor:  it was 
the result of HUMAN FAILURE.




[snip]
>
> If that is the case then we are, after 3E gets its launch done in HEO 
> sats...a reasonable hope is that with some new launch vehicles coming on 
> IE Falcon9 etc there might be some opportunities for "reduced rate" 
> launches...but who knows.  What I wonder is if there is any reluctance on 
> the part of launch vehicle providers after the 40 incident to let "amateur 
> propulsion" ride on their vehicle.  It is after all "rocket science".
>


Why would any launch provider have any qualms about flying a payload with a 
motor that a) flew successfully several times previously and b) when it DID 
fail, did so LONG after separation from the launch vehicle?????

So far, Ariane has a far higher failure rate than any payload that it has 
carried.   In fact, that's probably true of just about EVERY launch 
provider.

More payloads have been "killed" by their launch vehicles than the other way 
around...