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 Maas 

    Date:  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/...