Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!allegra!karn From: karn@allegra.UUCP (Phil Karn) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Thoughts on Westar/Palapa Message-ID: <2265@allegra.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 12:20:16 EST Article-I.D.: allegra.2265 Posted: Wed Feb 8 12:20:16 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 02:14:13 EST References: <2260@allegra.UUCP> <197@heurikon.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 22 Actually, I think the biggest obstacle to any kind of shuttle rescue is economic. The satellite owners will get their money out of the insurance companies, so they don't have a lot of incentive. Even if the satellites could be rescued, this would take much time and most of the loss to the owners would already be done in the form of lost revenue - which greatly exceeds the value of the hardware. It could not be done on this mission because of fuel limitations, but it could theoretically be done on future missions with extra OMS tanks. This would mean essentially dedicating an entire flight to the rescue. Also, if the satellites have to be rescued in their current elliptical orbits with a single flight to save costs, the shuttle would have to do two rendezvous operations. Even though the inclinations, apogee and perigee heights are the same, their arguments of perigee (where in the orbit apogee occurs) are most likely different, and maneuvers between these can be expensive of fuel. However, I don't have the orbital elements for the two spacecraft and haven't done the calculations. I wouldn't be suprised if a rescue launch time and orbit could be picked that would allow both satellites to be rescued within the shuttle limits, assuming somebody was willing to pay for the mission. Phil