"The Shuttle has flown a little over 100 flights with one failure, so the rating is a little over 99% right now. Accepting a 1 in 20 failure rate (95%) like you first suggested for an expensive manned vehicle like the Shuttle is simply unacceptable for anything short of wartime."

Careful, I said that "I" would accept a 1 in 20 failure rate. A zero failure rate would be acceptable for the privatised shuttle. Blowing up your passengers is not good business, as many airlines have discovered, and the Columbia would be the only flight asset the Venture has (hence the option for the purchase of an additional orbiter built into the original purchase).

That having been said, a zero-percent failure rate is of course impossible. But let's look at the ground crew. The cream of the crop of current and former shuttle workers, the best of the best, people who LOVE the vehicle. Do you honestly think they'd allow the shuttle to fly if they didn't think they had done everything possible to make sure it was a safe flight that their passengers would enjoy? Documenting 99.999% safety is one thing, living it another.

Actually, I'd free up the enginners from the documentation function by having documentation teams that work with the engineers to ensure everything is properly logged in a timely way. Engineers do engineering, clerks clerking. Each of them 100% committed to the success of the project, because it's their project.

Additionally, the Columbia is the heavy duty bird. She's stronger than the others, designed to take more punishment (which of course no one would intentionally inflict on her). She would be operated as an OPERATIONAL flight vehicle, not a developmental one. Mods could of course be suggested by the ground crew, but the basic intent is to fly as is. That's why all existing documentation associated with the Columbia would be included in the initial $2.0Bn cost, so that it can be analysed and a strategy developed for its operational use. She's been fine for over twenty-five flights, she should be fine for another thirty-five or more.

Reusability is the key factor, as by year five you're launching four times a year, or once per quarter. That's pretty good volume to distribute the launch costs. The macro financial model assumes ground ops costs of about $400.0Mn per flight in the beginning, declining to about $200.0Mn per flight in around year eight. By that point the ground crew should know the Columbia intimately, and be able to forecast where the problems are going to be.

As I said, this is an initial draft. I'm still looking for the deal breaker. I've a few sensitivity analyses and nothing major's shown up (unless you drop ticket prices to that of a Soyouz seat, but hey, we're talking passenger amenities like onboard movies and rich Corinthian leather seats). I'm most worried about insurance, though.

Thanks for your reply,
Kadet Ken