Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl
From: johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: TDRS-C means never having to say LOS?
Message-ID: <371@gronk.UUCP>
Date: 31 Oct 88 14:34:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: gronk.371
References: <6732@dasys1.UUCP> <1934@kalliope.rice.edu> <233@vuecon.econ.vu.nl>
Reply-To: johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert)
Organization: BFEC/GSFC Greenbelt, Maryland
Lines: 20

In article <233@vuecon.econ.vu.nl> MorsinAc@econ.vu.nl (Triple A) writes:
>In article <1934@kalliope.rice.edu>, phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>That was about it for TDRS-C/D, but when checking the launch schedule,
>I discovered they planned to get some more TDRS's up there (TDRS-E/F).
>So my question is, what are they supposed to do if we already got two
>fully operational ones (and a spare) up there? Are they to replace the
>old ones or what?

We don't have two fully operational spacecraft and a spare.  TDRS-A is not
"fully" operational.  I'm not sure what the problems are, but it is
definitely not 100% operational.  TDRS-B was lost in the Challenger
accident.  TDRS-C is in the process of being moved to its operational
location and is in a test phase.  So that adds up to one semi-crippled
TDRS and one soon to be operational TDRS.  Two more 100% operational
satellites are needed for the desired configuration of TDRS East, TDRS West
and an in-orbit spare.  I believe the original plan was to have 4 spacecraft
in orbit, 3 operational and 1 spare.

-- 
John Limpert		johnl@gronk.UUCP	uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl