On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:55:38 +1100, "BlagooBlanaa"
wrote:

Considering the number of research satellites that fail or partially fail
due to instrument or other presumably fixable problem, why aren't satellites
(whose mission profiles permit) launched to a near enough vicinity of the
ISS so that astronouts can go out and fix 'em

Does it really strike you as being a good idea to try to send possibly
malfunctioning satellites as close to ISS as possible? Are you a curling
fan?

How many 100 Million to Billion dollars sats could have been salvaged this
way.

How many 100 Million to Billion dollars extra would it cost to send satellites to
ISS orbit, check the oil, then send them to where they need to be?

Could this be a way to make space colonisation pay?

Only if you can find a mathematically challenged satellite owner to pay the bill

Dale