Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!ems!srcsip!orion!rogers
From: rogers@orion.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: satellites and orbits
Message-ID: <13171@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 9 Dec 88 14:20:15 GMT
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: rogers@orion.UUCP (Brynn Rogers)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Lines: 22


[lots of stuff about orbits and which satellite it could be deleted]

From my limited knowledge about satellites I do know that a 
very significant percentage of the satellites weight is fuel (hydrazine)
for station keeping, orbit changes, ...

In the TRDSS that got put in the wrong orbit (B? A?) the whole
reason its lifetime went from ten years down to two is because it
wasted 8 years of station keeping fuel to finish boosting it into the
correct geosyncronous (sp?) (Clark orbit=Geosync?) orbit.
  When that fuel is gone it will drift into crummy positions that
won't be useful.

I would guess that very substantial orbital changes could be made with
this new milsat to put it where ever it is wanted.
(only up to a point, if they want to visit it with a shuttle it
would have to move back to a orbit where it could be reached.
Of course one reason the shuttle visits it is to add fuel.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brynn Rogers  rogers@src.honeywell.com 
				  'seek out new life and civilizations'