[FPSPACE] Orbiting robots could repair satellites on the fly

[gorski]

Alas, that probably means robotic servicing missions aren't much more
feasible than pushing satellites around!

It's been a few years so I get them a little blurred in my mind, but there
were a few members of a little spaceborne fleet described therein.  I
guess OMV was the one that was in any real level of planning, though the
OTV was the one that could solve problems with e.g. Hubble--I didn't think
OMV had the impulse to carry a heavy vehicle like Hubble very far (say,
from its current orbit to ISS's).  Not that that would have been a problem
anybody would have anticipated at the time--Freedom's orbit would have
been closer than ISS's, and nobody would have blinked twice at the safety
of just flying the Shuttle up to Hubble to fix it.

I could be wrong, though.

Thanks!

--me



On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 agzak at optonline.net wrote:

}Budget cuts killed the OMV, which, by the way, had no aerobraking
}capabilities and whose role never went beyond servicing Hubble, SIRTF and
}other few expensive "big observatories." Aerobraking tugs never went
}beyond conceptual studies, I suspect. The main problem was, I think, is
}the fact that commercial satellite manufacturers had never adopted the
}very philosophy of orbital repair as a financially viable option.
}Therefore, it was probably irrelevant which orbit the ISS, Shuttle or OMV
}would fly in, since commercial satellites lacked interfaces, docking
}mechanisms, refueling systems and modular elements, which could make it
}feasible to repair them.
}
}Anatoly Zak
}http://www.russianspaceweb.com
}
}
}
}----- Original Message -----
}From: gorski <gorski at ctc.net>
}Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 2:20 pm
}Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] Orbiting robots could repair satellites on the fly
}To: LARRY KLAES <ljk4 at msn.com>
}Cc: fpspace at friends-partners.org
}
}>
}> The problem of course is that there's a somewhat limited ability of a
}> satellite to adapt to the repair job--and astronauts have been getting
}> good at this job for a while.  Not just Hubble either--what was the
}> firstone, Solar Max I think?  (anybody else remember the "Ace
}> Satellite Repair
}> Co."?)
}>
}> Somewhere lurking in a drawer I have a short pamphlet on the Ronald
}> ReaganPlan for Space Utilization (title was something like that).
}> Whateverhappened to orbital transfer vehicles?  Maybe the 1984 idea
}> of a manned
}> vehicle with an aerobrake was impractical to build, but a robotic
}> spacetug to move things from a useful orbit to a lower/more easily
}> accessibleorbit and back seems like it has some practicality to it.
}>
}> Did that idea go the way of the dodo around when Freedom and Mir-2
}> mergedto become ISS?  Was it just budget cuts that ate into it, or
}> did the fact
}> that ISS has such an incredibly steep orbital inclination compared
}> to all
}> the rest of the American hardware in space, that we threw away the
}> spacetug idea because we had nowhere to tow broken satellites to?
}>
}> Anybody have any idea?
}>
}> --Chris.
}>
}>
}> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, LARRY KLAES wrote:
}>
}> }Orbiting robots could repair satellites on the fly
}> }
}> }NewScientist news service June 28, 2008
}> }
}> }Space agencies and satellite
}> }operators should accelerate their
}> }efforts to develop robotic mechanics
}> }that can more economically fix
}> }errant satellites on demand, three
}> }researchers argue....
}> }
}> }http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=8956&m=25748
}> }
}> }
}> }_______________________________________________
}> }FPSPACE mailing list
}> }FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
}> }http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
}> }
}> _______________________________________________
}> FPSPACE mailing list
}> FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
}> http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
}>
}
}_______________________________________________
}FPSPACE mailing list
}FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
}http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
}