(George William Herbert) wrote:
The response was "Yes, but now they're working 95% of the time,
rather than 55%".

That lesson is hard even for well funded navies...

nods And that's where the low cost frightfulness proposed elsewhere
in this thread really falls down.

It's pretty much a given that a decent cruise bird can be built for
around $10k. However, I'd be willing to wager a bottle of beverage of
choice that their reliability won't exceed 50%. That's high enough
for a terror campaign, but as a useful military weapon, it's nowhere
near enough. 'Cheap' weapons aren't nearly as cheap when you have to
launch *four* $10k birds to ensure that *one* lands on target.
Lacking assurance of a kill adds greatly to the difficulties your
offense must face, and complicates your logistics chain.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.