Nevertheless, representatives of the commercial space insurance industry have been trying to take advantage of concerns about recent failures to get Congress to pay attention to this issue. Last year was one of the space industry's worst, racking up commercial losses of about $2 billion in six launch disasters, according to insurance experts. This year has seen losses too, including one military and two commercial payloads aboard Titan 4, Athena, and Delta III rockets.

Insurance underwriters say that by purchasing insurance, NASA and the other government agencies would save taxpayer money in much the same way people save on home rebuilding and car repairs following a disaster or accident. Insurance premiums--typically 10 to 15 percent of the spacecraft and launch costs--are a lot lower than the cost of footing the entire replacement bill.

"People buy flood insurance for their homes. I don't know why the government is the only entity that feels it doesn't have to buy insurance for its assets," says Ted Johnson, co-managing director of the Washington office of Aon Space, a company that insures commercial satellite launches and on-orbit performance.

But the government continues to look for other ways to decrease the risk to spacecraft, such as buying several spacecraft at one time. For instance, by buying 21 satellites for its follow-on global positioning satellite program at one time, the Air Force held unit costs down to $30 million per spacecraft. And in event of a loss, it can move to the next one in the series without having to convince Congress to authorize money for replacements, an Air Force official said.

Some industry experts agreee with the government's decision on this issue. According to Dr. Robert Conger, a vice president at Microcosm, a Torrance, Calif.-based space engineering and risk management consulting firm, because many military satellites and interplanetary probes are 'one of a kind,' insurance premiums would be relatively high. Over the long run, he adds, the government "works as a large insurance broker of its own-an entity with 'deep pockets' and a large capital pool, which most companies do not have. It is probably economically justifiable to self-insure."

Even finding commercial insurance for expensive spacecraft would be difficult. At NASA, insuring the launch of a $2 billion shuttle would mean tapping worldwide sources beyond insurance, such as the capital markets or the aviation community. Aon Space estimates that the global space underwriting community cannot insure any single space launch beyond about $1.2 billion.

The need to protect national security interests also plays a role. According to Eric Stallmer, executive director of the Space Transportation Association, national security issues would come into play if the government tried to insure space hardware. Since 70 percent of the insurance underwriting is done off-shore, obtaining insurance for government programs would mean tapping international insurance consortia. This could send data about sensitive technology abroad -- and possibly into the wrong hands.

To avoid these pitfalls, the government self-insures against a loss or accident involving a spacecraft or launch vehicle. How, depends on the damage. If the value is small enough, normal reserves may be able to cover it. But even minor damage might be expensive. For instance, replacing a small part of the avionics system on a shuttle could be covered by existing funds. But it might put the orbiter out of service for a year because it would have to be shipped back to Palmdale, Calif. for repair, "resulting in a major program budget hit," says David Forbes, NASA associate general counsel for contracts. Government agencies then must go back to Congress for additional funding.

To hedge their bets, NASA and commercial contractors do take routine precautions as severe storms advance toward the coast. They bolt rockets to their launch towers, shut off power, raise landing gear on the space shuttles and put them in harnesses--steps that prevent excessive movement. Sometimes NASA will move a solid rocket motor to facilities in western Florida for added protection, a NASA spokeswoman said.

In the majority of cases, this will suffice, but if a hurricane the magnitude of Floyd were to hit the Cape directly, the Florida spaceport's protective layers would be no match for its deadly 150 mph winds. According to experts, most buildings in the complex can withstand winds of up to 125 miles per hour. Above that threshold, things begin to rattle apart.

The government takes chances confidently, says NASA's Forbes, because it knows that the kinds of calamities that could wipe out billions of dollars in spacecraft are rare. But when Floyd bore down on the Cape, it underlined the fact that the risk of catastrophe is always present--and as things stand now, Congress seems willing to accept it.