We keep disagreeing because you insist on discussing repairs.
assuming that the current problems with the craft turn out to be software or a non-critical sensor malfunction ... assuming that full control over the craft can be regained, assuming it can be maneuvered ... assuming it could still perform its intended mission ... assuming 10 foot long space aliens don't attack us by then; then, possibly, and only if financially it would make sense and and it actually could be done in time and a number of yet other unlisted assumptions ... there is a remote chance that a propulsive module type of tug ... could be sent up to rendezvous and berth with the craft.I'm sure that still qualifies as "fantasy" for most here, even though technology to do something like that does exist.
John, you crack me up!
Back to a thought I posted earlier on this thread regarding communications rescue satellites. Hypothesize that a private company (SpaceX, for example) put together a rendezvous capable spacecraft with the right general communications, and perhaps a the capability to allow program upload by the client. The question that comes to mind is this: Would the launch insurance company reduce their rates if such a spacecraft was on standby? Note that looking forward a few years, maybe even Skylon would be available to carry the rescue satellite to LEO. Do insurance companies even cover situations like FG?
F-G was a bad design.
b. Gov't payloads are self insured.
The launch of the Phobos-Grunt mission was ensured for five billion rubles by Russkiy Strakhovoi Tsentr (Russian Insurance Center), including 1.2 billion for the spacecraft itself, covering all contingencies until the vehicle escapes the Earth orbit following its liftoff.
Quote from: Jim on 11/29/2011 02:36 pmF-G was a bad design.Without being able to know what went wrong, that is impossible to tell. What is obvious is bad choices where made, like not having telemetry during the first burn. The vehicle was not ready for flight, it might have or have not been a bad design.