Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!kcarroll
From: kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
Message-ID: <3754@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 13:53:06 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3754
Posted: Mon Apr 16 13:53:06 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Apr-84 13:53:06 EST
References: <12153@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 42

*

I disagree with the optimistic opinion expressed a while ago, that
the recent shuttle mission would have been a great success even if the
solar maximum satellite hadn't been able to be captured or repaired.
While it is true that many interesting things were demonstrated during this
mission (high apogee orbits, release of the heavy LDEF), the
repair of the solar max. satellite was the first attempt NASA has made
to back up one of the claims which were used to justify the expense
of the shuttle: that it would make launching satellites less espensive
in the long run, by providing the ability to retreive damaged
ones, and either repair them or return them to earth. Thus, 
satellites could be designed with less redundant systems,
dropping their cost and weight; also, insurance premiums on launches
could drop, as a satellite which failed on orbit could be returned
to earth for repair at a fraction of its original cost, and hence
insurance companies would spend less on such satellites, and hence could 
charge less in the way of premiums.
   The current shuttle mission cost in the range of $20M to $30M,
I beleive. That'd be a small price to pay for the repair of the
solar max. satellite (the actual cost was higher, as $50M or so of hardware
had to be provided for the mission). If the attempt failed, though,
NASA'd have (a) a still-broken solar observatory, and (b) an extra
$80M missing from it's 1984 operating budget: nothing for something!
They'd then have to consider sending up yet >another< repair mission,
for another $20-30M, which woud have a similar chance of failure to
that of the first mission. They'd likely not chance it, for fear of the
bad press if the >second< mission failed as well (the press can be
awfully fickle). The scenario in which the repairs failed utterly
would be a very bad one: the shuttle would have been proven
>un<-reliable in its satellite-repair role., and a lot of the economic 
justification for the shuttle would evaporate.

   Of course, this is all academic now, as the repairs to
the errant satellite were carried out in fine fashion, hurrah!
Now rescue missions for the palapa and westar satellites are being 
considered; perhaps insurance rates >will< go down for launches in the near
future, rather than up. We should realize that the success of the
recent shuttle mission was rather a momentous thing,
and be glad (especially seeing how close it come to failure).
-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll