Xref: utzoo sci.space:4505 sci.space.shuttle:518
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!mmm!allen
From: allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable?
Message-ID: <1568@mmm.UUCP>
Date: 4 Feb 88 19:42:53 GMT
References: <217@stcns3.stc.oz>
Reply-To: allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen)
Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M
Lines: 26
Posted: Thu Feb  4 13:42:53 1988

In article <217@stcns3.stc.oz> dave@stcns3.stc.oz (Dave Horsfall) writes:
>
>Then follows this statement:  "The choice of Arianespace followed the
>consideration of various economic factors, including the longer life
>expectancy of a rocket-launched satellite compared with that of a
>shuttle-deployed satellite."
>
>Forgive me if this has been hashed over before, but that statement
>does sound a little odd.  Are shuttle-deployed satellites really less
>reliable than rocket-launched ones?  How come?

While not knowing all the facts, I think that that remark is in reference
to Shuttle launched rockets being launched in an orbit that typically
requires more fuel to reach Clark orbit from. The more fuel used by the
satellite means less fuel for station keeping when it is in it's final
position. I believe that the majority of non functioning satellites in
orbit became non functional because of lack of fuel to maintain their
orbital positions and attitude.

Just as an aside, the shuttle was to have tried in orbit refueling of
satellites to revitalize older satellites. I don't recall whether it occured
or not.
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen