On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 3:
Next »
This is not new ....
... I worked on the project that was supposed to repair the Hubble, which was adapted from another "robotic satellite repair" project.

In the end of the day, the cost of development and execution turned out to be more than double the cost of just replacing the satellite or in the case of the Hubble, 2 dedicated shuttle launches.

This method sounds interesting and promising to people who haven't work in the aerospace industry. But once you analyze the cost vs benefit, the result is the same .... robotic repair missions are more expensive than replacement.

The biggest problem: single mission use. Because even satellites of the same model are very different in configuration and each have thousands of reasons/ways to brake, it is nearly impossible to design a multi-purpose robot that can handle multiple missions in one flight. On top of that, most satellites weren't designed to "dock" with another spacecraft. Making any repair mission more difficult and increasing the chance of damage during approach.
Posted by: wackoae   Posted on: 10/04/08 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

This is not new ....  wackoae | 10/04/08
Sorry...  ejhonda | 10/06/08
Fix with what spares?  tim@... | 10/06/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Meet Doc