Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

NASA Satellite Stranded 167

Posted by michael from the earth-to-major-tom dept.
Account 10 writes: "BBC News has a story about one of NASA's newest and most sophisticated satellites. Launched a couple of weeks ago, it was supposed to have moved itself up into the correct orbit . Once there, one of its roles would be to route data between the ISS, other satellites and the ground as aprt of the TDRS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite) project. However a fuel tank is leaking and it cannot reach its orbit. One suggestion is that it maneuver itself into an orbit where the shuttle can reach and rescue it - to repair it and send it on its way, or bring it home to be launched again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Satellite Stranded More

NASA Satellite Stranded

Comments Filter:

  • So sad (Score:1, Troll)

    by Kasmiur ( 464127 )
    that we find out info about a USA space program from a european news site. W
    • I think this article must be a mistake, this is surely a reference to the chronically inept Communist space program. Editors, please rectify. Nothing ever goes wrong with a cappo space program.

  • Silly Putty and Spit (Score:4, Funny)

    by AlaskanUnderachiever ( 561294 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @05:38AM (#3215670) Homepage
    Wasn't there a recent slashdot story (in the past few months) about a budget sattelite put up for under 50k with a metal ruler for an antenna that's still working? I've got a 84 jeep bumper I'm willing to donate for the next communications sattelite. Hell, if they're willing to put my name on the sattelite, I'll throw in my old C64 to run it.

  • Some Suggestions for NASA... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @05:52AM (#3215692) Journal
    1) Fire all the satellite's rockets to bring it screaming into the atmosphere on the 4th of July for one hell of a fireworks show.

    2) Get Tommy Lee Jones and the rest of the crew from Space Cowboys to give it a good kick.

    3) Replace the leaking fuel cell with a new one filled with Nitro Glycerin.

    4) Mass-produce the same satellite and sell it in hobby shops under the name, "My First Satellite Set".

    5) Sell it to the US Miltary as a target for the new missle shield.

    6) "Fuck it, we're going to Mars now."

    7) Call AAA for a tow. (or at least a jump-start)

    8) Tell the monkey inside it to peddle faster.

    9) Make up some ridiculous excuse to explain why you've wasted several million dollars on something that doesn't work - like a fuel leak from a damag... wait a minute...

    10) Pretend everything's going as planned.

  • Dangerous? (Score:2, Funny)

    by evil_one ( 142582 )
    However, experts are saying either option would be a very complicated and potentially dangerous mission.
    Well yeah, would you want to fly a glowing hot shuttle through the atmosphere with a cargo bay loaded with a leaking fuel cell?
    • Well yeah, would you want to fly a glowing hot shuttle through the atmosphere with a cargo bay loaded with a leaking fuel cell?

      The cargo bay is actually air tight. The problem would come later in the descent when the preasure release vents are opened.
  • Under the terms of the contract Nasa does not accept delivery of the satellite until it is in its final orbit. If it gets there Nasa will redesignate it TDRS-9.

    Who launched the thing? If they can't recover it will Boeing have to take the hit? Not a good year for the airline industry.
    • Um, Boeing isn't part of the arline industry, it's part of the areospace industry. The airline industry is the one that actually ferries people & goods around on the airplanes.

    • Re:Will Boeing take the $825m hit? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jerryasher ( 151512 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @07:25AM (#3215779)
      In the past it has been the insurance companies that take the hit. Of course, with each failure to achieve orbit, insurance prices have risen and risen, such that now, there is a reasonable chance that Boeing has self-insured this satellite.
      • ...there is a reasonable chance that Boeing has self-insured this satellite.

        A great comfort to the 23,000+ people who are slated to get laid off by Boeing's commercial aircraft business this year, as a direct result of all the brain-dead Bush administration's "security" hysteria preventing the traveling public from... traveling.
          • A great comfort to the 23,000+ people who are slated to get laid off by Boeing's commercial aircraft business this year, as a direct result of all the brain-dead Bush administration's "security" hysteria preventing the traveling public from... traveling.

          This seems like revisionist history to me. Putting aside that it may or may not be true that current administration generated hysteria is actually holding down the traveling industry to some extent, Boeing announced those layoffs within a few days after Sept. 11th.

          As I recall, the travel industry was suppressed at that point due to all flights being grounded. A sensible move to hold down hysteria actually seeing as nobody wanted to fly anyway - people were cancelling reservations right and left anyway - and it probably was good that security was completely reviewed before starting up again.

          It was a cynical move by Boeing to announce layoffs so soon. Boeing was trying to feed into the general hysteria and line up for bailout bucks themselves.

        • I kinda get the feeling that the terrorists had something to do with it aswell...

  • Without a real space station we just pedestrians (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    hen is nasa ever gunna wake up? they shoulda been buildin moonbase by now ~ if nasa was an os it would still be 8 bit ~ the whole organization needs reform ~ split it up, separate the os from the apps so to speak i.e. let nasa contract out lift to ups or fedex, build a space mall .. nikey will come!

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @12:36PM (#3216322)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Of course, if you want freedom, and real development in space technology in the private sector, elect a Libertarian.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • The average taxpayer simply would not be willing, or able, to evaluate all of the places that his/her donation could go and would, in the end, pick one or two favorite causes

            I don't like you or the government assuming that I am incapable of allocating my own money.

            To assume that is basically arguing for socialism.
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • but equally important programs would be harmed.

                Well, my counter-argument to that would be that the program is not as important, if people really don't care about it.

                Part of the problem with our current government spending is pork barrel programs that only benefit a tiny subset of the population in the reps district. This wouldn't happen anymore, and elected reps couldn't use such de facto bribes to get reelected.

                If the cause was important enough, a small minority has a way of being vocal, that would draw attention to them nationally, and get them funding.
                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • We believe that constant tinkering in a free market is unnecessary. If these social programs are important, then there will be a market demand for the services they provide. The more important a program is, the more demand there will be for the service, and the more people will pay for said service.

                    There are a few exceptions to this rule, but I'd say 99% of it the free market can take care of.

                    Besides, you seem to have way too much faith in your legislators. They don't have staffers doing research into anything except getting reelected. They don't give a fuck about anything but that.
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • so there has to be some reward other than simply keeping the job.

                      Power, kickbacks and bribes.
                      That's also the motivating factor of the "last-term" legislator.

                      So people who can't afford home heating oil will pay the cost of a program to give them money to buy home heating oil?

                      No, they will get a job and contribute something useful to society like everyone else has to do.

                      If they can't, then it is up to their community and family to support them. It doesn't justify stealing my money, and leaving me no recourse.

                      I may well end up in such a situation at some point in my life. If that happens, I wouldn't expect big brother government to steal hard working people's money to support me. That's just irrational.

                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • > It was Kennedy who saw space exploration as a source of national pride. He pushed the Apollo program.

        It's interesting you picked this example. I think that, more than any other human being, Kennedy is responsible for our ABSENCE of presence in space.

        When Kennedy came to office, the space program was operating under Werner von Braun's plan, which was
        1. Build a reusable surface to low Earth orbit shuttle (all stages were reusable).
        2. Using that, build a permanent manned orbiting station.
        3. Using that, build in orbit a lunar shuttle that travels between Earth and lunar orbit.
        4. After observational missions, the shuttle carries a lunar orbit to lunar surface vehicle.

        This was projected to get us to the moon in the late 70s, but with the road paved, developed, and settled all the way.

        This wasn't good enough for Kennedy. He sold the future for the sake of getting there first and substituted the Apollo program, and dead-end effort with no purpose beyond stepping on the moon once. The Apollo program was doomed by design.

        By the way, in the American system of government, the President does not decide what gets funded or not. That decision is made by the Congress, and both the House and the Senate were run by the Democrat Party during the entire length of Nixon's term in office.

        ++PLS

      • If you want rockets to be used in weapons, elect a Republican President. If you want rockets to be used for space exploration and science, elect a Democrat.

        If you care about actually advancing "space exploration and science" get the feckless retards that work for the government completely out of it! There has never been anything that gubmint does better than the private sector and capitalism.

        If it weren't for the government's monopoly of incompetence (created violently at the point of a gun) we would be vacationing on the Moon today.

        But I expect this tripe from someone who has nothing better than traffic [slashdot.org] to bitch about in his journal.

        Read a non-government approved book. (I recommend "The Federalist" as a start.) Then you'll be qualified to comment on the pathetic political situation in this country.

  • Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair.

    The first choice, Re-entry, is just to give up on it (in otherwords, send it back into the atmosphere and hope it doens't hit anyone, or hit a target so we get free tacos). I doubt they will do this considering the astronomical (pun somewhat intended) amount of money they would have wasted on the whole thing.

    Retrieve and Relaunch is probably unlikey too, because not only do they have to pay to send a shuttle up (although they can just do it on a regularly scheduled mission), but then they have to pay to launch it again. It would be pretty hard, IMHO, to snatch a sattilite, return it to earth, and relauch it without further damaging it. Plus, I'm sure it is more dangerous to land a shuttle with all that extra weight in the cargo area.

    That leaves us with repair, the most reasonable option. Send up some guys on the next shuttle mission with Duct Tape (about $1.50 a roll, depending on store and brand). Voila! Problem solved!
    • I'm sure it is more dangerous to land a shuttle with all that extra weight in the cargo area.

      The shuttle is designed [nasa.gov] to be able to bring satellites back. From the link:

      The space shuttle is the world's first reusable spacecraft, and the first spacecraft in history that can carry large satellites both to and from orbit.

      Now, whether it's more dangerous to bring back a satellite leaking fuel is another matter! I figure that they'd drain it before bringing it back though.

    • Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair.

      Abort, Retry, Ignore?

      I know that last one doesn't line up, but it's early and I thought I would try.
      --------
    • Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair. The first choice, Re-entry, is just to give up on it (in otherwords, send it back into the atmosphere and hope it doens't hit anyone, or hit a target so we get free tacos)...

      Maybe, maybe not. From the original BBC story it sounds like those at mission control don't know whether it has enough fuel to make it back to an orbit where the shuttle can retrieve it. I am going to speculate that if they don't have enough fuel to make it back to an orbit where the shuttle can retrieve it, then they don't have enough fuel for re-entry either.

      Obviously, Boeing had already started moving it up to geosynchronous orbit, or there wouldn't be any question of moving it back to an orbit where it could be retrieved -- it would still be in an orbit where it could be retrieved. This means it is much less of a problem leaving it in place. Unlike Mir, and Spacelab, if it is partway to geosynchronous, above where the shuttle can retrieve it, its orbit isn't going to decay to an altitude where it might crash for eons.

      ...Retrieve and Relaunch ... would be pretty hard, IMHO, to snatch a sattilite, return it to earth, and relauch it without further damaging it...

      How do you figure this? Matching orbits won't be a problem. NASA, and the Russian space agency, must have done this thousands of times by now. Heck, didn't the tugs that supplied Mir do it by remote control? (-8 And they only crashed one once. 8-)

      Isn't the robot arm strong enough, yet gentle enough to grab it, once it has matched orbits? Maybe they wouldn't be able to roll the photocells back up. What other problems did you anticipate?

      That leaves us with repair, the most reasonable option. Send up some guys on the next shuttle mission with Duct Tape (about $1.50 a roll, depending on store and brand). Voila! Problem solved!

      Yeah, we'll send Red Green. (whose movie, "Duct tape forever" [imdb.com], opens up any day now. And my buddy who wins stuff [chezcomfy.com] won us advance tickets for the local sneak preview.)

      Seriously though, my question is, if Boeing has to wait for a next generation shuttle to retrieve it, how many years should they wait, before the satellite last its value? Two years? Five years? Ten years? Whose next generation shuttle will be ready first?

      If the Soviets could make robot frieghters dock with Mir, why can't someone make a robot tug just large enough to fly to high orbit satellites like this, and tow them down to where the shuttle can retrieve them?

      • I am going to speculate that if they don't have enough fuel to make it back to an orbit where the shuttle can retrieve it, then they don't have enough fuel for re-entry either.

        It's easier to achieve re-entry than to get back to a low orbit. They just need to make the orbit more eccentric, and it'll graze the atmosphere at perigee. It'll be going way too fast for the shuttle to catch it at that point. Slowing it down safely would take lots of fuel. (The atmosphere will slow it down, but the satellite is not likely to survive the experience!)
    • Well, NASA has 3 choices Re-entry, Retrieve and Relauch, or Repair.

      I fear this post has missed an essential point -- as the article makes clear, this isn't NASA's problem, it's Boeing's problem. NASA doesn't pay for the thing and doesn't own it until it's in the right orbit.

      • Mod parent up! It is in vogue to hammer NASA everytime anything related to space goes awry, but the reality is that something is wrong with the spacecraft that BOEING built. NASA doesn't own it, doesn't take delivery, doesn't pay money for it, until it is healthy and in the correct orbit.

        NASA buys all sorts of hardware from private industry, and federal purchasing regs mandate that the deliverables must satisfy the spec in the purchase order prior to the invoice being paid.
        This applies equally to spacecraft as it does to computers or flashlights or anything else.

        I imagine if the news media got hold of a story about NASA receiving a new PC from Gateway that had a bad stick of RAM installed, we would have a similar bunch of posts about NASA screwing up.

        Besides, space flight is not easy, nor risk free. Just like any other technologically intensive activity, things go wrong. Unfortunately, unlike the everyday foul-ups and equipment failures that happen everywhere, NASA's are shown live on TV.

    • That leaves us with repair, the most reasonable option. Send up some guys on the next shuttle mission with Duct Tape (about $1.50 a roll, depending on store and brand).

      No, no, no... This is the US government here. Hammers generally run about $50,000 each, a couch runs several hundred thousand dollars, etc. You have to convert to government dollars. Last I checked, the going conversion rate is something like ((N/I) * Pi^8) where N is the normal price, and I is the importance of the item (scale of 1 to 10, duct tape being a 1, nuclear weapon being a 10).

      Therefore, that $1.50 per roll duct tape would actually cost about $14,175 US government dollars.

      • Funny, I was actually going to include something to that effect in my original post, but I wanted to get some sleep and I couldn't remember any specific examples (I knew about expensive hammers and toilet seats, but not thier prices). Thanks for clearing this up!
      • This is the US government here. Hammers generally run about $50,000 each, a couch runs several hundred thousand dollars, etc. You have to convert to government dollars. Last I checked, the going conversion rate is something like ((N/I) * Pi^8) where N is the normal price, and I is the importance of the item (scale of 1 to 10, duct tape being a 1, nuclear weapon being a 10).

        Where do you put the cost of black projetcs into the equation?
    • Normally to get a bird into Geosynch orbit takes a PAM (Payload Assist Module). It is a lot further out. I understand that this sats motor quit someway up so retrieval/repair may be very difficult.

  • The real reason... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SHiFTY1000 ( 522432 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @06:11AM (#3215721) Homepage
    NASA Engineer: I dont understand... I only shoved 3 gallons in that tank, it should be fine! Whats that? Litres you say? Oh not again...
    • When is the US going to stop thinking that using the metric system is just a commie plot and any congressman who supports it is going to be voted out. ALL the industries have to work with it, they buy and sell parts using it, the rest of the world can make a decision to use it, just f**ing do it. The commies didn't even invent it, it was napoleon, and he was as good a dictator and high achiever as you are ever going to meet.
      • Indeed, when will everyone realise that it should be dd/mm/yyyy, 'litres' not 'liters', 'metres' not 'meters', 'English' and 'American' not 'British English' and 'US English', 'British' != 'English', '...ise' not '...ize', and.. oh whats the use.

        In actual fact, similar things have been going on this side of the pond with market traders going all the way to the European court to claim the right to sell produce in pounds and ounces rather than kilogrammes and grammes.

        I have yet to see one person who can sensibly claim Imperial measurements ('English' measurments to our US bretherin) are useful for technical specs and calculations.
        • How is it pronounced? Lee-ter

          Your spelling would have it pronounced Lee-tree.

          Besides, it's not the first time a spelling morphed when a word was adapted from another country, I don't see why anyone would lose sleep over it.
          • Your spelling would have it pronounced Lee-tree.

            The same way 'centre' is pronounced 'cen-tree'? Of course this is just the way that the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, etc. spell it and since the USA spells it wrong, they must be right :) -- Note this is not an anti-US flame, just that English is a little bit decoupled in the spelling vs. pronounciation dept.


        • I have yet to see one person who can sensibly claim Imperial measurements ('English' measurments to our US bretherin) are useful for technical specs and calculations.

          That's just it, most industries do use the metric system. The thing is that in people's day-to-day lives, the customary system is easier. (No, I don't know why base-10 is so hard for measurements) Personally, I find it easier to say I'm 6'1" rather than 185cm. I'm sure it's mostly an issue of culture, but 185cm seems cumbersome to me. As to miles vs. kilometers, well, there is just a lot of inertia here. For some reason though, liters are better accepted, as long as you don't sell it to me in gas. :P

          I think that the metric system will take over in the US, just slowly. It'll have to start with things like they did in some county in Kentucky. All the signs there said "Foosville 100km(60mi)." I don't remember which county it was in, but I thought it was a great idea. My cousin told me that they just stopped with that small area unfortunatly. I think Loudoun county, Va was supposed to have switched over the the metric system in like 1996, but they didn't. Aperently, it's not the first missed deadline on it either.

          And anyways, how else was I supposed to bother my physics teacher? Giving velocity in furlongs per fortnight is fun!
          • There is a chain of eateries, here in Southern Ontario, called "Elephant and Castle". They are one of several competing chains that try to recreate the experience of visiting an English pub. The decor is meant to be like that found in England, and so is the menu, Bangers and Mash, Steak and Kidney pie, Fish and Chips.

            Well, my buddy Gerry and I sat down and each ordered a pint of cider. There was something funny about those pints. The waitress confirmed that the "pints" were actually only 500 millilitres. We got a kick out of ordering another round of "metric pints".

        • I have yet to see one person who can sensibly claim Imperial measurements ('English' measurments to our US bretherin) are useful for technical specs and calculations.

          Also remember that the American "English" scales of measurement are not the same as Imperial measures. Especially when it comes to volumes, such as "pints", "gallons", etc.
          As for technical measures in the 1940's both the Imperial and the English inch were redefined to be exactly 25.4 mm. Because the differences were causing problems in the manufacture of precision parts for weapons systems.
      • The commies didn't even invent it, it was napoleon
        In fact IIRC it was during the french revolution, early 1790s, and it would probably have occured anyway if the monarchy had survived.

      • When are the rest of you going to realise that metric is just anouther arbitary measurement system. the only advantage of metric is it is used by most of the world (which is a LARGE advantage, don't get me wrong).

        Metric is not perfect. 1/3rd for instance doesn't work out easially in metric. Nor does 1/4th. In some areas both are commonly needed.

        In the end though all the really matters is that whatever arbitary measurements you use, everyone ends up with something that fits.

        Most amercians can work with metric. I do it when I need to, but quite honestly I see no reason to switch. I'm comfortable working in both systems. Even if we did switch overnight, I have a lot of old equipment that I like to keep running (old iron is a hobby, of mine), so I will still be using the old system, and I would hope others do.

        Thus, I would argue that americans have an advantage because we are used to more systems, and can use whichever one is best.

    • Well it would have worked only if a gallon is less than a litre(liter). But a gallon is 4.5 liters, so the engineer had actually put more fuel than needed. Altough that would explain it being overweight and not managing to reach its destination.
  • a fuel tank is leaking and it cannot reach its orbit.

    What do you expect? Everyone has to take a leak a sometime...

  • Older rescue (Score:3, Informative)

    by Account 10 ( 565119 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @06:50AM (#3215757)
    This [server101.com] is the story of the successful rescue of an Intelsat after it failed to seperate from its rocket and got stuck in a low orbit. It took 6 tries over 3 days for the shuttle crew to catch it.

    The TDRS satellite [hughespace.com] has a similar mass to the Intelsat [nasa.gov]

    • Re:Older rescue (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jerryasher ( 151512 )
      Yes, and depending on which web [cosmiverse.com] site [spaceline.org] you visit, the shuttle has launched up to seven of these tdrs satellites (but I don't know if any were of the same weight as this one). If it can safely launch one, then I have to assume that (ignoring fuel leaks) it can land with one.
      • Assuming that it can land with one just because it lauched with one? The shuttle's launch is assisted by 2 booters and 1 main fuel booster.

        The landing is a "soft" glide down to earth.

        I think it IS safe to assume that the satellite could fit in the cargo area...assuming they can retract any commucation antena they had to extend.
        • Assuming that it can land with one just because it lauched with one?

          Yes. In case of a failed launch (like engine failure) the shuttle has the option to return to earth for a landing. Either at the launch site or in Spain or some other location. AFAIK ejecting the payload is not a part of that procedure.

        • It's late my time, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

          My point is that they have launched seven TDRS satellites in the past, and so for safety's sake each of those launches, must have had various mission abort strategies that entail a landing with a TDRS on board. Emergency landings at KSC, at Easter Island, Edwards, White Sands, etc. And I bet there are abort to orbit scenarios in which they still can't ditch their payload and so have to land with it eventually.

          So yeah, I am betting that if they can launch with one then they can configure a mission in which they can land with one. Land that is, assuming there are no dangerous fuel leaks.
        • I think it IS safe to assume that the satellite could fit in the cargo area...assuming they can retract any commucation antena they had to extend.


          I'm not so sure about that. This TDRS is a newer models, not like the ones launched by the shuttle.


          It also is probably pointless to do a rescue mission. IIRC, NASA contracted to take delivery on orbit, so if the mission fails, it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. Why risk a rescue mission when they can just wait for a new satellite to be built?

          • True, but it might be cheaper for Boeing to get it rescued. Assuming Nasa is already sending up a shuttle (which they do from time to time), that will come back with an empty payload bay (which happens often). Then the extra cost to retrieve a satalite is essentially nil above the costs nasa already has to spend. So Nasa could contract out retrivial of this satalite for some amount of dollars, which is mostly profit.

            Obvously, sending up a shuttle to only get the satalite is not worth the cost. however that is not the case.

            So the real question is: Can Boeing make a new satalite for less than what nasa wants charge to retrive it. When calculating this out, don't forget any possibal engineering value in studing the retrived statlite to see why it failed. (and thus do a redesign so the next one won't fail that way)

    • STS-49 lifted off flawlessly from Cape Canaveral on Thursday, May 7, 1992. INTELSAT controllers began to maneuver the errant satellite into a lower orbit and reduce its rate of spin from 9 rotations per second to 0.6 rotations per second.

      It can't be easy to catch a satellite that is rotating in a low-G environment - even 1/2 a rotation/second is pretty freaking fast.

  • Wording (Score:1)

    by O2n ( 325189 )
    From the article:
    to an orbit that keeps it in the same position above the Earth's equator.

    It's called geostationary orbit... duh.
    The term has been around for more than 40 years, along with actual satellites in that kind of orbit.

    I wonder how stupid the target audience for bbc news is. I mean, in a couple of years they'll call the traffic lights "color encoded traffic regulator at street crossings"? :)
  • Could it be all those bits and bobs of junk orbiting the earth finally have caused a major satellite to malfunction? I mean they've been saying for years that eventually all the little bits could cause loads of satellites to break up - but nobody believed them.

  • Who is going to build.... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Who is going to build the first satellite recovery robot/probe? As more satellites are being launched and seem to fail in orbit ,and/or die of age. Why not make a recovery vehicle that could park satellites in a low orbit and prepare them for service by a shuttle or robot. Obsolete satellites could be prepared for re-entry.

    I guess engery is the only limiting factor...
    • Who is going to build the first satellite recovery robot/probe? As more satellites are being launched and seem to fail in orbit ,and/or die of age. Why not make a recovery vehicle that could park satellites in a low orbit and prepare them for service by a shuttle or robot. Obsolete satellites could be prepared for re-entry.

      I guess engery is the only limiting factor...

      I should have read this whole thread first. I made the same suggestion. After all, they supplied Mir by robot, and they only crashed one of those robots once.

      If energy is a problem, and time is not, could this robot use a light sail? How far are we from that? What prevents using these robot tugs to take satellites out to geo-synchronous orbit in the first place?

      Another article in this thread said that NASA wasn't allowed, to carry any liquid fuel rocket in the shuttles, after the Challenger disaster. (Wrong solution to the wrong problem maybe?) So what powers the maneuvering jets of current birds? I read something in another thread recently about "cold-gas jets".

      • The energy problem is a tough one. And if satilites keep getting cheaper and smaller, we may never see satelite recovery crafts, just more space junk.

  • liquid fuel? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @07:51AM (#3215795) Homepage Journal

    Leaking fuel? As in liquid fuel? Since when can the shuttle carry up payloads with liquid fuel?

    Following the Challenger explosion, one of the safety regs imposed was that no payload could have liquid fuel. This required the Galileo team to adjust the launch trajectory for the spacecraft to include 2 slingshots around the inner solar system.

    • Re:liquid fuel? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by mobets ( 101759 )
      Maybe they didn't put it up w/ the shuttle. Lots of satalites go up on a normal rocket.

    • Re:liquid fuel? (Score:2, Informative)

      by bogasity ( 517035 )
      TDRS HIJ were designed for launch on an Atlas in order to reduce launch expenses. Also, none of the articles I have read yet have indicated that TDRS I is leaking fuel. There are many other failures that could lead to a lack of fuel flow from one the tanks - a pinched line, failure of the pressurization system, bad bladder inside the tank, etc. If you read Boeing's statement [spaceref.com], they have confidence they can resolve the problem. After seeing Hughes (now Boeing) engineers slingshot [hughespace.com] a satellite around the moon a couple times to get it to a geosync orbit, I wouldn't underestimate what they can do in this case.
    • Leaking fuel? As in liquid fuel? Since when can the shuttle carry up payloads with liquid fuel?

      Actually, only the slashdot summary mentions a fuel leak. The article only says that there was a fuel tank malfunction - which could just as easily be a screwed up valve or clogged pipe.
    • You need to read the article a little closer. It was launched with an Atlas rocket.
  • "newest and most sophisticated" you just *know* what's coming next must be bad news!
  • I must be tired, when i first read the second link, I read it as TRDS-1...and I thought, "Well, that's a stupid name for a satellite. It should be TRDS-2, cause nubmer one is something else...". Anyway, I've been up all night long it's 6:30 in the AM and my shift is almost over.
  • In other news, Pioneer 10 [slashdot.org] is still going strong. It seems the more complicated and sophisticated we try to make things, the more prone to breakage they become.
    • If this is the kind of retarded farmboi common sense (spit! ka-chunk) wisdom that passes for insight nowadays then I'm not surprised present day tech is so prone to breakage.

      Pioneer 10 cost $75 million to build which translates into approx. $350 million current day prices. The TRDS project has $825 allotted for 3 sattelites that are far, far more capable than Pioneer 10, and have to fulfill a far, far more complicated role.

      Pioneer 10 might have been good, but it was also expensive, and took over three years to build. Good, fast, cheap. Pick two.

  • Shuttle rescue unlikely (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jonathan McDowell ( 515872 ) on Sunday March 24, 2002 @08:51AM (#3215859) Homepage
    As I pointed out in my newsletter JSR [harvard.edu] on Friday (before the BBC story, I note :-)) it's unlikely that they will try a Shuttle rescue because it would take more fuel to get down to a Shuttle orbit than to get up to GEO, given where it is now. All the previous rescues involved satellites in much lower orbit. Oh, and as a side note to the poster who commented on the post-Challenger regulations, it's only liquid hydrogen that the Shuttle won't deal with in the payload bay, there have been plenty of payloads since then which have had hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide on board, which is what the BSS-601 satellites like TDRS-I carry.

    I draw slashdot's attention to the fact that the story was originally broken by Keith Cowing's excellent NASA Watch [nasawatch.com] web page. I expect that they will get the bird to GEO, although Space Command doesn't seem to have issued any new orbital data for it in several days.

    • From http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters /discovery.html [nasa.gov]:
      "Two orbiters, Challenger and Discovery , were modified at KSC to enable them to carry the Centaur upper stage in the payload bay. These modifications included extra plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic (L02/LH2) propellants (other IUS/PAM upper stages use solid propellants), and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur stage. No Centaur flight was ever flown and after the loss of Challenger it was decided that the risk was too great to launch a shuttle with a fueled Centaur upper stage in the payload bay."

      I think the modifications have since been removed. We now have no shuttle capable of launching a Centaur upper stage -- the other was destroyed. I have often wondered if this really is all that dangerous, considering the fact that the hydrazine maneuvering fuel used on many satellites the Shuttle launches is hypergolic, meaning it will ignite on contact with its oxidizer, no spark needed. Hydrogen and oxygen, on the other hand, require an ignition system.

      • I have often wondered if this really is all that dangerous, considering the fact that the hydrazine maneuvering fuel used on many satellites the Shuttle launches is hypergolic, meaning it will ignite on contact with its oxidizer, no spark needed. Hydrogen and oxygen, on the other hand, require an ignition system.

        The shuttle has both kinds of fuel on board anyway. The OMS and RCS are hypergolic fuel and the main power system uses hydrogen and oxygen fuel cells (providing drinking water as a byproduct). Quite possibly there is more hydrogen and oxygen onboard the shuttle than there was on board the Apollo service module.
  • Maybe the military can use it as target practice for their anti-satellite tests. They've done so well with those rigged tests maybe a mislaunched satellite would resemble something launched from a "rogue nation"

    I didn't think it was funny either.
  • No substance here, only vision (or fluff). If you're looking for a response with meat, skip this one.

    Now wouldn't it be neat if the ISS had a few Satellite repair labs and a "space tow trucks" for a team of pilots to leave the ISS and retrieve a satellite for repairs? No more shuttle space walks to repair the Hubble. Instead, the shuttle brings necessary components (fuel, repair parts, etc.) to the ISS so the crew on the ISS can do the work in a less risky environment.


    Anyone know if this has ever been NASA's intention?

    ::Colz Grigor
  • Does anyone remember a couple years back when they were launching the Cassini satellite? There was a huge movement [animatedsoftware.com] to stop the launch because the Cassini had radioactive fuel, which in an accident above the earth (either in the initial launch or the "boomerang" across the planet) could potentially threaten millions of earth lives for centuries to come.

    NASA at the time said that there were safety features that made an accident virtually impossible.

    I wonder now, considering the fuckups w/the various Mars missions and this $825m satellite, whether they should be allowed to continue using plutonium fuel...

    Thoughts? Are these protesters paranoid or do they have a valid point?

    W
    • The protesters take the unreasonable position that no risk is acceptable. If they led their lives by this standard they wouldn't get dental X-rays and they wouldn't live anyplace with granite bedrock. (Granite is radioactive in case you didn't know that...)

      If Cassini had reentered the odds say that it would have hit the ocean. Plus the plutonium is in ceramic form that likely would make it to the sea floor more or less intact.

      Plus you make the fault in assuming that all NASA missions (and all aspects of those missions) are treated the same as regards to safeguards against failure. I'm sure NASA looks at "what's the worst that could happen if this fails" for all the scenarios. Therefore the launch of a relatively small sub-$1bln part of a series mostly-nontoxic satellite didn't receive as much redundency than a multibillion long-term one-of-a-kind toxic subcomponent probe.
    • Does anyone remember a couple years back when they were launching the Cassini satellite? There was a huge movement [animatedsoftware.com] to stop the launch because the Cassini had radioactive fuel, which in an accident above the earth (either in the initial launch or the "boomerang" across the planet) could potentially threaten millions of earth lives for centuries to come.

      An RTG is not a fission reactor. The chemical properties of the fuel and it's daughter istopes are well known, so it can be encapsulated in a way which is very safe.
      If they want to make a fuss about danger from shuttle launches they'd be better off complaining about the SRBs which produce all manner of nasty chemical byproducts.
    • I've seen the testing of the way the contain the Radioactive material.
      They took a rocket, put a container in the nose of the rocket, and then launched it into a wall. (Not a normal wall,obviously.) The cantainer was unscathed.
      The prtester have a valid concern, but they shouldn't close there eyes to the saftey precautions and say "its bad, just bad". I would have a lot more respect if they actually evaluated there concerns, instead of a knee jerk, radiaion! it must be stopped.
      Of course it was these people that tried to tell me Nuclear Power planets are bad because it sends radiation over the wires.
  • As someone who thinks the key to space exploration is stepping into space and building a number of craft for a number of things this could have been avoided.

    There would be errors with satellites and maybe even the ISS, but shouldn't there be other craft with available resources?

    Colonize space, don't just send up a few metal boxes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!

Close