lipman@decwrl.UUCP (02/13/84)
From: dvinci::fisher (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, 231-4108) > I wonder if a remotely controlled "space tug" could be built and launched > for under $20 million... I doubt that you could even get someone to give you a space-tug proposal for under $20 million! But seriously, the TRS (Teleoperator Retreival System) was designed to do jobs like this. It was mainly to be used for saving Skylab back in the late 70s before the first shuttle launch slipped past the projected crash date for Skylab. In any case, the TRS was cancelled, Skylab crashed, and now we don't have any such capability. Of course, TRS probably would not have helped the two comm sats for all the reasons that have been mentioned here for the past several days. In addition, I believe that it had Apollo/LM/Skylab/ASTP-type docking hardware, as well, rather than the multi-mission spacecraft bus hardware that retrievable satellites will/do have. This might be a problem in reincarnating it to help with future satellite problems. (What we REALLY should have had was a shuttle that could get to geosynchronous orbit!) Burns UUCP: ... decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher or ...allegra!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher or ... ucbvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher ARPA: decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@Berkeley or decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@SU-Shasta
sew@minn-ua.UUCP (02/17/84)
#R:decwrl:-563000:minn-ua:4400002:000:1059 minn-ua!sew Feb 16 14:36:00 1984 . > ***** minn-ua:net.columbia / decwrl!lipman / 6:13 am Feb 15, 1984 > From: dvinci::fisher (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, 231-4108) > > > I wonder if a remotely controlled "space tug" could be built and launched > > for under $20 million... > > I doubt that you could even get someone to give you a space-tug proposal > for under $20 million! It might depend upon whether you want a tug which will last for 10 years and can handle any job (such as the one launching in 4-5 years), or you want a tin can with a rocket nozzle and a net. Maybe someone is willing to gamble a little with some collection of spare parts which has a reasonable chance of costing less than the $50 million cost of a new satellite. Especially if the tin top might end up with enough fuel left to fetch the second satellite. (Repair is left as an exercise to the reader..but postings to the net are probably not necessary unless someone announces they're going to play catch) From the analogue digits of: ...ihnp4!umn-cs!mecc-ua!sew Scot E. Wilcoxon, MECC Technical Services.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/24/84)
Scot Wilcoxon suggests, re a space tug to retrieve the mis-orbited satellites from the latest shuttle mission: It might depend upon whether you want a tug which will last for 10 years and can handle any job (such as the one launching in 4-5 years), or you want a tin can with a rocket nozzle and a net. Maybe someone is willing to gamble a little with some collection of spare parts which has a reasonable chance of costing less than the $50 million cost of a new satellite... The question is not whether somebody is willing to gamble on building a tin can with nozzle and net, but whether NASA is willing to gamble on launching it. One thing NASA is *not* willing to gamble with is the safety of their shuttle orbiters, and so anybody who wants to fly a rocket engine in the shuttle cargo bay has to meet very stiff safety standards. In practice, you would probably need to use a well-proven off-the-shelf propulsion system. And finding one of those that has a useful total delta-V and is restartable, several times, in space is not a trivial exercise. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry