Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!REM@MIT-MC From: REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Missing satelite Message-ID: <16508@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Feb-84 01:09:00 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16508 Posted: Tue Feb 14 01:09:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 06:40:23 EST Lines: 15 From: Robert Elton MaasDate: Tue, 7 Feb 84 03:36 EST From: Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA As I follow the (poor) news stories here, the missing satelite has been located in an orbit [corrected: with perigee near the STS orbit; and both satellites, not just one] Is there a good reason why they don't just go back and pick it up?? At perigee, the satellites are traveling much faster than STS (enough to drive them up a couple hundred miles higher at apogee), while at apogee the satellites are too high up. I doubt it's feasible to fetch it back this mission, but with suitable planning and a "space bicicle" it may be possible to snarf both satellites some later mission, at least I hope. If that mission were done, it would really prove the use of the manned STS as contrasted with unmanned Arianne and Atlas/Saturn/...