Saving that Recon. Satelite

Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth
to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply,
I really can't understand why it can't be done.

Mark

"Mark Kelep" writes:

Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth
to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply,
I really can't understand why it can't be done.

Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one
that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? vague
recollections that it once did). And satellite capture and repair I
beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of
sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do?

I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I
can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. Others
surely will know more.

--
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"Mark Kelep" writes:

Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to
earth
to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put
simply,
I really can't understand why it can't be done.

Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one
that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? vague
recollections that it once did).

It did once, no longer does. Could again. Finding a crew with the
requisite clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard.

And satellite capture and repair I
beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of
sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do?

It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are
harder because they may be tumbling). No real reason it couldn't be done
here.

However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. The satellite as
I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to
reach with the Shuttle from KSC.



I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I
can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. Others
surely will know more.

--
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Feb 19, 12:28�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message

...

"Mark Kelep" writes:

Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to
earth
to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put
simply,
I really can't understand why it can't be done.

Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one
that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? �vague
recollections that it once did).

It did once, no longer does. �Could again. �Finding a crew with the
requisite �clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard.

And satellite capture and repair I
beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of
sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do?

It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are
harder because they may be tumbling). �No real reason it couldn't be done
here.

However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. �The satellite as
I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to
reach with the Shuttle from KSC.



I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I
can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. � Others
surely will know more.

--
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting � � � � � Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql �(at) �greenms.com � � � � �http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

too bad they never built that much talked about space tug, otherwise
known as a tow truck.

think of how many uses it could of had, begining with saving skylab
for reuse, ending with either dropping this dead bird in the pacific
or putting it into a long term staorage orbit.

so many practical uses.

build a enhanced version and go retrieve that apollo descent module
snoopy, now theres a long term test.

"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message

...

"Mark Kelep" writes:

Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or
any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to
earth
to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put
simply,
I really can't understand why it can't be done.

Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one
that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? ?vague
recollections that it once did).

It did once, no longer does. ?Could again. ?Finding a crew with the
requisite ?clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard.

And satellite capture and repair I
beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of
sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do?

It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which
are
harder because they may be tumbling). ?No real reason it couldn't be done
here.

However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. ?The satellite
as
I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible
to
reach with the Shuttle from KSC.



I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I
can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. ? Others
surely will know more.

--
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting ? ? ? ? ? Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql ?(at) ?greenms.com ? ? ? ?
?http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

too bad they never built that much talked about space tug, otherwise
known as a tow truck.

think of how many uses it could of had, begining with saving skylab
for reuse, ending with either dropping this dead bird in the pacific
or putting it into a long term staorage orbit.

so many practical uses.

build a enhanced version and go retrieve that apollo descent module
snoopy, now theres a long term test.


I get it, it's just that this Sat. has deadly fuel and high tech image
hardware and software that I would never believe that they wouldn't do it if
they could, Military or not.

Mark

"Mark Kelep" wrote in message
...
Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to
earth to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put
simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done.

NASA doesn't have bungee cords strong enough to hold it in the payload bay.
:-)


Seriously though, I doubt if the failed satellite was designed for shuttle
recovery (i.e. has an RMS grapple fixture on it and has the necessary
hardware to securely latch in the shuttle's payload bay). Add that to the
fact that since it's dead, it has a tank full of frozen hydrazine and would
likely be a hazard even if it could easily be secured in the payload bay.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Mark Kelep was zeer hard aan het denken :
"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message

...

any

It did once, no longer does. ?Could again. ?Finding a crew with the
requisite ?clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard.

It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which
are
harder because they may be tumbling). ?No real reason it couldn't be done
here.

However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. ?The satellite
as
I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to
reach with the Shuttle from KSC.

http://toddh.net/

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting ? ? ? ? ? Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql ?(at) ?greenms.com ? ? ? ?
?http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

too bad they never built that much talked about space tug, otherwise
known as a tow truck.

think of how many uses it could of had, begining with saving skylab
for reuse, ending with either dropping this dead bird in the pacific
or putting it into a long term staorage orbit.
Originally, one of the first shuttle missions was to dock with SkyLab.
This never happened because SkyLab burnt up over western Australia 2
years before the first shuttle launch was ever possible.
Also the first shuttle launch was delayed a few years (technical and/or
budgetary reasons).
snip/snap

André

"Mark Kelep" wrote in
:


I get it, it's just that this Sat. has deadly fuel and high tech
image hardware and software that I would never believe that they
wouldn't do it if they could, Military or not.

There's no real cost benefit in doing so, when the development cost
of the tug and its logistics are considered. Eventually there may be
a sufficient demand and market, and technological convergence to
make such a service more cost-effective.

It could be argued that a relatively simple de-orbit system for the
big chunks IS desirable.

--Damon

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"Mark Kelep" writes:

Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to
earth
to fix it?
Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put
simply,
I really can't understand why it can't be done.
Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one
that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? vague
recollections that it once did).

It did once, no longer does. Could again. Finding a crew with the
requisite clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard.

Finding a flight control team with the requisite clearance levels would
be. They'd have to be cleared at least Secret just to know the payload's
envelope, appendages, and mass properties, things they would absolutely
need to know to conduct the mission safely. Ditto the Mission Control
Center. The old MCC used FCR-2 for DoD flights and it was on a separate
floor from the other control rooms with its own card readers. The
current MCC has all the control rooms on the same floor and there is no
easy way to secure them (especially the MPSRs, which are now out on the
open floor) from each other. Since ISS is a 24/7 operation with
international partners involved, that would be problematic for security.

And satellite capture and repair I
beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of
sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do?

It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are
harder because they may be tumbling). No real reason it couldn't be done
here.

Returning it might be dangerous. It's unlikely to have grapple fixtures
or trunnion pins. A support cradle would likely need to be fabricated to
support it, and there just isn't time to design, build, and qualify one.
If you were going to send a shuttle regardless, it would be better to
just have it attach a deorbit motor.

However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. The satellite as
I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to
reach with the Shuttle from KSC.

Not really. It's only 58.5. The operational limit from KSC is 57 but
that can be exceeded using a dogleg, like STS-36 used to reach 62
degrees. That carries a payload penalty, but the upmass for such a
mission would likely be pretty light anyway.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Returning it might be dangerous. It's unlikely to have grapple fixtures
or trunnion pins. A support cradle would likely need to be fabricated to
support it, and there just isn't time to design, build, and qualify one.
If you were going to send a shuttle regardless, it would be better to
just have it attach a deorbit motor.

Say they tethered the satellite to the shuttle. Could they fire the OMS
engines to cause satellite to begin de-orbit to target the pacific ocean
and then once satellite is released, fire OMS engines again, this time
to re-accelerate shuttle so its de-orbit would bring it to KSC ?

After they would first fire the OMS engines, how long would the shuttle
have to unhook the satellite and fire OMS again to delay its re-entry ?

Would such a manoeuver be considered extremely risky (if OMS don't light
up second time, shuttle would ditch in pacific), or would it be
considered feasable by the crews ?