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