Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!lipman From: lipman@decwrl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.columbia Subject: Space tug Message-ID: <5630@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 09:47:28 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.5630 Posted: Mon Feb 13 09:47:28 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Feb-84 01:45:05 EST Sender: lipman@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 34 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