Hmmm ... sounds a lot like Orbital Recovery. Let's hope they don't make the same mistakes.
no market
Quote from: Jim on 01/14/2011 01:40 pmno marketSorry, Jim, but there isn't universal concurrence on that assessment. You almost always seem dead on during discussions of various space topics. However, in this case Dennis Wingo, who was a co-founder of Orbital Recovery, said in a parallel comment on NASA Watch that he has signed contracts with satellite operators - so he knows that there is a market. I for one hope there still is a market.
Look at MSAT 2, a small, low powered, 5 beam voice and 4800bps data bird getting replaced by Skyterra 1, a 72' antenna, 500 spotbeam 72 gigabyte (total) bird. When satellites are at the end of their lives, it's because of a lot more than running out of gas. There will be sats at least 100 times as capable that will bring in a lot more revenue waiting for their slots.
Quote from: jryodabobs on 01/14/2011 05:54 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/14/2011 01:40 pmno marketSorry, Jim, but there isn't universal concurrence on that assessment. You almost always seem dead on during discussions of various space topics. However, in this case Dennis Wingo, who was a co-founder of Orbital Recovery, said in a parallel comment on NASA Watch that he has signed contracts with satellite operators - so he knows that there is a market. I for one hope there still is a market.read the next comment in the NASA Watch threadDennis has a habit of "finding" markets that tend to disappear.
Actually have there been any feasibility studies on satellite repair by NASA and the like? I'd search for some but it's late where I am right now.
I can think of several exceptions. ISS is refueled often, repaired often, and Hubble has been repaired several times (and there have been multiple instances of repair or other sort of work done during the earlier Shuttle days).We can argue whether those are all the best approaches, but they do present quite a few existence proofs that your cycle isn't ironclad failure.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/14/2011 04:30 amI can think of several exceptions. ISS is refueled often, repaired often, and Hubble has been repaired several times (and there have been multiple instances of repair or other sort of work done during the earlier Shuttle days).We can argue whether those are all the best approaches, but they do present quite a few existence proofs that your cycle isn't ironclad failure.What all the "existence proofs" have in common is that they are all government projects with multi-billion dollar budgets. They prove it can be done, but they don't prove it can be done economically and commercially.
I can think of several exceptions. ISS... Hubble... they do present quite a few existence proofs that your cycle isn't ironclad failure.
Pegasus, clearly, though... Plenty of commercial payloads, and obviously must be considered economical or they wouldn't keep launching! 40 launches is nothing to sneeze at.
The Global Space and Satellite Forum in Abu Dhabi has heard how US-based ViviSat plans to extend the life of geosynchronous satellites that are running out of fuel with its Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV).ViviSat MEVIf the scheme gets the funding it needs, the MEV could be launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket before making its way 36,000 kilometres to the Clarke Belt using Xenon-powered plasma thrusters. Once there it could latch on to an ailing satellite and provide it with new manoeuvrability.The MEV would act as the propulsion and attitude control for the satellite, so extending its life. This isn't the first time that GSSF has seen a proposal for such a scheme, but this one has the backing of US space experts ATK and US Space LLC, plus a host of personnel with lengthy backgrounds in the industry.
Ever hear of cone express.
