NASA wants to set up a service station.
Seems like if this makes economic sense, it could be done commercially.
10 thoughts on “Satellite Servicing”
Comments are closed.
NASA wants to set up a service station.
Seems like if this makes economic sense, it could be done commercially.
Comments are closed.
Link.
Considering that most satellites were not designed by NASA, it should be done commercially.
The same argument applies to whatever ISS is supposed to be doing. Why should the taxpayers continue spending $3-4 billion a year, rather than leaving space-station operations to the private sector?
Of course, a NASA service station would be another “public-private partnership.” So, the New Space community will no doubt hail it as the new Alpha Town.
The same argument applies to whatever ISS is supposed to be doing.
Unlike satellite servicing, there is no commercial demand for it.
There is demand allright. How can you explain people like Dennis Tito, Mark Shuttleworth, or Richard Garriott then?
There’s not enough demand to justify the amount of money spent on it.
Sure but there are ways of building a space station that wouldn’t cost as much as ISS did. Like what Bigelow is doing.
It was the ISS itself that was under discussion. It’s not a tourist facility.
What about the pr0n industry? Lots of potential there
I was speaking specifically of the ISS, not orbital facilities generally.
Even a satellite that could just grab on to another satellite can be useful, if it has several flywheels and lots of propellant. Consider the Kepler telescope, now down to two flywheels. If a simple satellite carrying six flywheels, propellant, and say Altius-style grabber arms can rendezvous with Kepler, the telescope could go back to its primary mission instead of the less useful current stopped-watch-points-the-right-direction-twice-a-day mode of operation.