Conference 7.286::space

    Yes, I heard that too on a different news service, along with the same
    confusing comment.
    
    The news report mentioned that ground controllers had altered it's
    orbit so that it would not decay for at least 12 days.
    
    I THINK the Intelsat VI design uses an Orbus 21S (same engine as the IUS
    first stage) as its perigee stage and its internal liquid bipropellant
    engine for the apogee burn (otherwise I can't imagine why Hughes would
    have included a bipropellant engine). It may use the Orbus and multiple
    burns of its bipropellant engine to acheive transfer orbit, similar to
    the Syncom IV design (Intelsat VI satellites are BIG!). Intelsat VI was
    designed to be launch vehicle independant, otherwise they probably
    could have used a proven system, like Titan 3/Transtage.
    
    My guess is that the perigee stage did not seperate, but I'll probably
    have to wait until next week's AW&ST to find out.
    
    gary

  The Globe had an equally confusing article. They said that the satellite
could not separate from the "big Titan 3 Booster". Isn't the Titan 3 a
2 stage launcher? Would the 2nd stage be all that big?

  Anyway, they went on to say that the satellite's main engine (probably
the IUS) couldn't separate so they sent commands to separate the satellite
from it's main engine.

  If there is any truth to this, then maybe they are thinking of using it's
apogee engine to boost it into a high enough orbit for rescue by the Shuttle.


  WBZ gave a totally incoherent account on last night's news.

  George

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 03/15/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 16 Mar 90 07:17:59 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 15, 1990                      Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
    This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, March 15:
  
    An Intelsat communications satellite is in a low Earth orbit,
today, following a suspected malfuction in the upper stage of a
commercial Titan 3 booster.   The Intelsat 6 was launched yesterday
from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  The objective was to place the
$150 million, 5-ton spacecraft into a geostationary orbit.  But for
some reason, the satellite did not separate from the upper stage. 
Controllers fired the apogee kick motor on the satellite to separate
the two.  That left the Intelsat 6 in a low Earth orbit rather than
its planned 22,300 mile high position.  Reports indicate the satellite
may stay in orbit about 12 days before re-entering the atmosphere. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, 
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch, (LPC), NASA 
Headquarters.

    gee, this should produce a spectular show, with all the
    fuel aboar the satellite and the final stage still attached!
    
    john
    

    Well, if I cna make sense of the resports, it now sounds like the
    Intelsat/Orbus combination did not seperate from the Titan stage 2
    and they used the apogee motor to seperate the satellite from the Titan
    stage-2+Orbus. If that is true then satellite is stranded in LEO.
    
    The basic Titan 3 is a three stage vehicle, but they number the stages
    from zero. So, stage 2 is the third stage (to avoid confusion :-).
    
    Intelsat VI is a new design, similar to the Hughes HS-393. It is much
    larger than the satellites that were rescued a few years ago. Rescue
    would require new hardware in the payload bay to secure the satellite.
    Seems unlikely, especially as there is no insurance to underwrite it.
    
    gary

  According to the Globe, they were able to move it from it's 100 mile orbit,
where it's estimated lifetime would be 12 days, up to a 150 mile orbit, where
they can use thrusters to keep it indefinitly. They are talking to NASA about a
Shuttle rescue. The Soviet Shuttle may also be considered since the U.S.S.R. is
part of the multi nation group that was involved with the satellite. 

  George

    re:6
    sorry the Soviet Shuttle can not be use, the 'BURAN' has
    been mothballed - for one reason it did not have a life
    support system - and the next unit will not be ready
    untill 1991
    
    

        Martin Marietta said the INTELSAT 6 satellite launched on March
    14 did not separate from the second stage of the Titan 3 rocket
    because a signal sent to activate the payload separation system could
    not reach the system. 
                                                                
        The company's analysis team attributed the malfunction to a Titan
    3 wiring problem, undetected by the processes and test procedures
    used in pre-launch checkout.  These processes and procedures are being
    reviewed and revised to preclude any such occurrence in the future,
    the company said. 
 
        [From a March 16 press release.]
 

    re .7
    
    1991 is probably earlier than the US could mount a shuttle mission to
    retrieve the Intelsat, fwiw.
    
    gary

From: mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Commercial Titan/Intelsat Launch Failure
Date: 19 Mar 90 16:15:48 GMT
 
My ``Martin Marietta sources" have told me that the seperation computer
control code was flawed.  The hardware all tested fine on the ground when
test software was run.  The flight code that was accidentally loaded
was designed for a TWO SATELLITE mission.  The satellite that was on board
was in the second satellite position if there had been two birds on board.
The software was looking for a  wire to be severed that would have
signalled that the first satellite had been successfully ejected.  Since
there was none, the hardware lockouts could not then successfully be
overridden and the software could not be changed from the ground for
whatever reason.  Probably no receivers and/or no time before the batteries
in the final stage give out.
 
Bob
 
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter	|	Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)			|	CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    Don't know if this would work but it's worth a suggestion.
    
    Instead of sending a shuttle to pickup the sat and return it to earth,
    Would it be possible to send another booster up in a shuttle or even
    attached to another launcher and then attach the booster to the disabled
    sat. Then it would just be a matter of fixing the wiring and codeing   
    problem before activating the booster to place the sat in geo-orbit. 
    
    Is this possible and is it economical? My guess would be that the cost
    would need to be a max of 120mil to make it worthwhile.
    
    Any ideas???                                 
    
    Simon 
    
     
    it to the
    sat and  

I would think that a capture and return mission would be more likely since the 
shuttle bay is typically full when leaving and near empty upon return. One of 
the problems would be sufficient crew training to successfully do it.

Here are the latest 2 line element set for INTELSAT-6
it should be a good visable object

1990 021A	INTELSAT-6  Launch 14 MAR          
1 20523U 90 21  A 90 74.29039680 0.00949071 -33568-4  32900-3 0   043
2 20523  28.6054 167.4356 0137379 086.2250 275.4231 16.05129504   124

for those who don't want the 2 liners, here is a detailed discription
of INTELSAT-6 orbit

    1990 021A INTELSAT-6  Launch 1 (Launch 90-21-  A)   Set:    4, Obj:  20523
          Epoch Year: 1990  Day:  74.290396800    Orbit #      12
          Inclination  =  28.60540000     R.A.A.N      = 167.43560000
          Eccentricity =   0.01373790     Arg of Per   =  86.22500000
          Mean Anomaly = 275.42310000     Mean Motion  =  16.05129504
          Drag         =  0.94907E-02     Frequency    =        0.000
          S.M.A.       =    6638.3333     Anom Period  =      89.7124
          Apogee Ht    =     351.3700     Perigee Ht   =     168.9765

good hunting
john                              

    

    	I figure that I would throw in my opinion on this topic:
    
    			Write off the satellite.
    
    There is no way that they will send the Shuttle to retrieve it because
    
    1) The schedule is too tight.
    
    2) It would cost upwards of $350 million to recover a satellite that
    cost only about $150 million to build. In the post-Challenger era it is
    HIGHLY unlikely that NASA will subsidize such a flight as they did the
    previous comsat recoveries. INTELSAT is unlikely to be able to come up
    with that kind of money (especially since the satellite was uninsured
    from what I heard).
    
    	Other recovery schemes such as sending the Russians to get it is
    impractical (even if the Soviet Shuttle were available, it can't reach
    the inclination the the satellite is in) or sending another booster is
    untried (it would take quite some time and money to develop something
    that could rendezvous and latch onto this satellite). Unless there is a
    rabbit to be pulled out of some hat somewhere, the satellite will have
    to be written off as a complete loss.
    
    		Just my opinion...
    
    			Drew
    
    

    re .14
    
    I think you are right, in that they will write it off.
    
    In addition to cost and scheduling issues, Intelsat may not want it
    back. I suspect this is why it was not insured.
    
    Intelsat over estimated the demand for transponders when they spec'd
    the Intelsat 6 series and did not anticipate the opening up of the
    international comsat market to competitors. They ordered 5 Intelsat 6
    satellites with an option on a further 11. It is reasonably certain
    that they will not exercise the option and may not have orbited all of
    the 5.
    
    gary

AW&ST reports that the first time the command was given to separate from the
Titan, nothing happened.  The second time they gave the command, it separated
from the Perigee motor so that the live perigee motor was sitting in the
Titan, the apogee motor was on the satellite, and it was still in LEO.  That
explains why they used the Apogee motor to push the sat into a higher orbit.

I suppose one could also do some intense  rationalization as to how this supports
the statement earlier about having the 2-satellite software loaded.

As someone said, it should be spectacular when the Titan reenters...

Burns

    In an industry that is only just getting rid of hardwired sequencers in
    favour of general purpose flight computers, a software goof seems more
    likely to me.
    
    gary

    What's the deal with the estimates on a resue mission for this
    satalite? The numbers I've seen is something like $100 million, now
    is that in cash or on credit :-). When most of the shuttle missions
    are up there they spend the first 1/2 day launching the satalite
    and the next 3 1/2 days doing ohter unrelated things. Now if I were
    to figure out the cost of this thing I'd launch the shuttle when
    it could easily catch up with the Intelsat satalite so they spend
    the next couple days retrieving it. So the issue of retrieving this
    sat. appears to me:                                       
                                                                
    1. Do the owners really want this thing back or in orbit? One of
    the replys in this note would suggest not.                 
                                                               
    2. This kind of mission is what the shuttle is best at, why isn't
    NASA going after the job hammer and tongs?                 
                                                               
    3. How much should it cost? The shuttle is going to be in space
    should it be 1/2 the cost of a mission? Or should it be something
    less than 1/2 after all someone else is paying to get the thing
    up there already? 
    
    4. For those of us who like seeing things do what they are made
    for how about retrieving some of those foreign satalites that can't
    make it into a valuable orbit?
    
    Fred Mudgett                
        

    Re:.18
    	I'll try to answer your questions in order:
    
    1) If the owners didn't want it, they wouldn't have spent almost $100
    million to launch it. I do not know what the penalties were to cancel
    the launch contract, but it would have been a lot cheaper to keep this
    satellite on the ground.
    
    2) Retrieval missions are one of the things the Shuttle is suppose to
    be good at BUT it is no where near as easy, inexpensive, and routine as
    NASA would have liked us to think in the pre-Challenger era. Face it;
    the Space Shuttle is a difficult to use, VERY expensive, experimental
    spacecraft. It is presently the ONLY means we have to send men into
    orbit. Why risk the men or machines (both virtually pricless national
    assets) for a $100 million satellite? It is better used for something
    else.
    
    3) How much would it cost? No one really knows including NASA and the
    GAO. So much accounting BS goes on that it is virtually impossible to
    get an exact figure. Typical estimates run about $250 million per
    mission. Throw in training and mission related hardware and it
    approaches $350 million. Even if a Shuttle mission were launched to
    recover INTELSAT 6 and the crew did other things while they were up
    there, the recovery would still be the MAJOR task. The other minor
    tasks could just as easily be done on another more useful flight. No
    matter how one cuts it, a mission to recover that satellite will cost
    more than the satellite itself. It makes no sense to do it.
    
    4) What foreign satellites in useless orbits? I can't think of a single
    satellite stranded in a useless orbit that the Shuttle can reach.
    Remember that the Shuttle cannot go any higher than about 400 miles and
    is constrained to orbits with inclinations between 28 and about 57
    degrees. Also remember that we STILL have no such hing as a space tug
    either.
    
    				Drew
    

  I don't think the recovery would be all that difficult if the satellite was
in the proper orbit and other conditions were right. The Shuttle was used
before to rescue satellites, once to refuel solar max, once to flip an external
switch that had gotten stuck, and once to rescue a pair of satellites stranded
much like this one. 

  The problems involve the direction of the orbit and the equipment needed
for the rescue. If there happens to be a shuttle going in the right direction
and if it's not a problem to include the Canadian Arm, and if there is nothing
weird about the satellite itself that would make it dangerous or make it
not fit, then the rescue should not be that big a deal. That was the case
in the earlier rescues.

  If, however, The satellite is in a weird orbit, or if it has dangerous
elements or if there is no shuttle headed that way that could include the arm,
then the rescue would be difficult

  George

    Larry,

    In many respects we are alike in our desire to have space utilized.  I
    think space exploration and utilization is perhaps the most challenging
    thing man will ever do.  

    However, at present in the U.S. (and perhaps in the world) it seems as
    if the weight of space utilization will be done by the private sector. 
    In the U.S. the key reasons are that our government is in debt and
    cannot tax the people any further without rebellion.

    Businessmen are NOT altruistic.  They move into ventures only when
    there is a potential for profit.  There is perhaps an argument (and I
    might add a good argument) that American business is too short term
    orientated in its return horizon, but be that as it may, business will
    not commercialize space if they see that they can not make a good risk
    adjusted return.

    Private enterprise and capitalism seems to have won on earth, I believe
    that the same will be true in space.  

    So each satellite that fails to work causes confidence in commercial
    returns from space activity to fall, (or the risk adjustment to be
    higher) decreasing the willingness of private entrepreneurs to see
    space as a viable place to invest their money.

    This are facts.  Indeed I think your very question shows how altruistic
    you are, greed has not touched you and you don't understand it.

    In my own opinion, space utilization and exploration will become a
    'reality' when it is clear that money can be made.  Before that time
    there may be some pilot projects, or some government boondoggles (can
    you say 'Freedom'?) which will demonstrate some glimmer of the economic
    potential of space.  When these glimmers become strong enough (i.e.
    satellite launches become as cheap and as reliable as air freight from
    New York to Tokyo), space exploration and utilization will explode.

    If Intelsat decide that they do not need 5 of the Intelsat 6 class
    spacecraft, then they may decide leave it stranded in LEO.
    
    NASA and Intelsat are supposedly talking today about two rescue
    possibilities:
    - snare it somehow with the RMS, load it into the payload bay. The
    problem with this are that the Intelsat 6 was not designed for shuttle
    deployment and has no grapple points, and a cradle to hold the
    spacecraft secure in the payload bay would have to be designed and
    built.
    - carry up a new perigee stage and mate it somehow to the Intelsat,
    probably manually by spacewalk.
    
    The latter approach is probably more interesting to Intelsat as it
    would be cheaper (no relaunch cost), and probably more interesting to
    NASA as its new and exciting.
    
    gary

To expand on what Gary said in regard to the statement about "it's been done
before:"

Solar Max was designed to be worked on with the shuttle.  It had a grapple
point.

The Syncom "flip the switch" manuever was actually more complicated than that.
However, the satellite was left up there, and besides was designed to fit
in the shuttle.

The two Hughes satellites (now Asiasat 1 and ???) were also designed to fit
in the shuttle and had a cradle etc.  However, special hardware had to be
designed to snare them.  They could not just hook on with the arm.

Sounds like "maybe possible but certainly expensive" should be the prognosis.

Burns

    what i would like to see...
    1. a prototype booster either an electric low thrust,railgun, or even
    a solar sail used to bring the sat. up to the required altitude.
    2. also the testing of a tether to give it an initial boost.
    
    here are two methods which have not been used and which would give
    america a practical experience and edge in the industrialization
    of space. in these cases cost should not be used as a criteia because
    these are experimental methods, if the satellite make it we've saved
    money and formulated new procedures and technology, if it doesn't
    we've still learned something.
    
    pete
    

How long have they got to act on this? Initially it was 12 days but they used
the apogee motor and extended that. What are the current estimates? I agree 
with the previous noter that it would make an interesting testbed for untried
methods but I'm sure there are other (inert/dead batteries) candidates that
would pose less of a risk to the shuttle and crew (I'm thinking of the unused
fuel on board)

Have we missed the Titan fireworks show and are there some reasonable 
estimates about when that will occur?

    for sale one LEO bird for SDI target practic , cash only  :>)
    3 shots for .25 E+6 $
    

From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Wales Larrison)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Intelsat Recovery (1 of 3)
Date: 28 Mar 90 05:38:08 GMT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Gateway)
 
    The Intelsat-VI-2 satellite left stranded by the Titan failure is
being considered for retrieval/repair by the shuttle.  The satellite
has been stabilized into about a 270 nmi orbit at 28.5 deg
inclination.  Expected duration of the satellite at this altitude is
greater than 2000 years, assuming a 2500 pound cylindrical satellite,
with a 12 foot diameter and the standard atmosphere - atmospheric
effects at solar max may decrease this duration. (Reference: Ginsberg
& Luders, "Orbit Planner's Handbook", 1976). 

    Potential missions to retrieve Intelsat VI satellite are estimated 
from the latest shuttle manifest (January) using the assumptions of: 
1) minimal flight manifest impact, 2) missions must be in 160 nmi 
altitude range at 28.5 deg inclination, 3) no bumping of DoD missions, 
4) no consideration of use on spacelab missions.  Missions are: 
________________________________________________________________________
FLT |LAUNCH DATE|INCL|CREW|   PRIMARY  |        |   SECONDARY  |        
NO. |  ORBITER  | ALT| DUR|   PAYLOAD  | CARRIER|   PAYLOADS   | REMARKS
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 41 |10-05-90   |28.5|   5|ULYSSES     |IUS/PAM |CHROMEX-02    |(2ryP/L)
    |OV-103 (11)| 160|   4|            |        |OCVTW-1,SSCE-1|VC-CCTV 
    |           |    |    |            |        |SE 81-09,IPMP |        
    |           |    |    |            |        |PSE , RME     |        
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 37 |11-01-90   |28.5|  5 |GRO         |        |SSBUV-02      |(2ryP/L)
    |OV-104 (8) | 243|  5 |            |        |CETA     |    |         
  |        |RME-III-02    |AMOS-07
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 43 |05-16-91   |28.5|   5|TDRS-E/SSBUV|IUS     |SHARE II      |* ADDED
 *  |OV-103 (13)| 160|   5|            |        |CVTE-01       |  PRCBD
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 50 |12-05-91   |28.5|   5|LAGEOS II   |IRIS    |FTS-DTF-01    |
    |OV-103 (15)|160 |   7|            |        |SPTN-02       |
    |           |    |    |            |        |ASP , DXS     |
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 52 |02-13-92   |28.5|   5|GEOSTAR-01  |PAM-02  |CVTE-02       |
    |OV-105 (1) | 160|   9|EURECA-A    |EURECA  |              |
    |           |    |    |USMP-01     |MSL&MPES|              |
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 54 |04-23-92   |28.5|   6|ACTS        |TOS     |CANEX-02      |
    |OV-104 (13)| 160|   7|            |        |WSF-01        |
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 58 |08-06-92   |TBD |TBD |FLT OPPTY   |        |              |
    |OV-104 (14)|TBD |TBD |            |        |              |
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 61 |10-29-92   |28.5|   7|INMARSAT-01 |PAM-D2  |SRAD/TPITS    |
    |OV-103 (17)| 160|   8|            |        |DEE           |
    |           |    |    |            |        |ISEM-01       |
    |           |    |    |            |        |IEH           |
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
 62 |12-10-92   |28.5|   5|TDRS-F      |IUS     |CVTE-03       |
    |OV-105 (4) | 160|   5|            |        |CAPL          |
    |           |    |    |            |        |SHARE III     |
____|___________|____|____|____________|________|______________|________
Conclusion:  There are suitable missions for Intelsat VI-2 retrieval.  
  (Continued on next message)
(My apologies, this system only accepts inputs of 60 lines or less.) 
--  
    Wales Larrison
....!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison             
               Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG 
    714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Wales Larrison)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Intelsat Recovery (2 of 3)
Date: 28 Mar 90 05:39:49 GMT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Gateway)
 
    Previous conclusion:  There are suitable shuttle missions for
Intelsat VI-2 retrieval. 
 
    Can the Intelsat be technically and economically retrieved? 

   Intelsat VI-2 was originally designed for shuttle launch, so a
pallet design is available for manufacture to accommodate retrieval
(estimate costs at $10-30 million).  Procedures would be similar to
Palapa and Westar retrieval done in 1984.  Projected shuttle
costs(long term average costs) are in the range of $160-200 million
per flight (Source: Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
Independent Shuttle Costs Assessment).  Using the previous shuttle
pricing policy guide for allocation of shuttle costs, this yields
about a $72-90 million retrieval cost (volume limited in payload bay,
weight cost basis is only about $16-32 million).  Considering a new
satellite from the Intelsat production line is about $150 million,
this appears to be a good deal for the insurers (savings of $30-68
million), since it avoids the production of a new, replacement
satellite. 

   Further operational issues need still to be resolved, primarily
verifying and validating the approach to fit within the schedule for a
specific flight. 
 
    Conclusion:  There are no major technical reasons the Intelsat
VI-2 satellite cannot be retrieved.  Economically, there may be a cost
savings if the satellite is retrieved, even with recovery of shuttle
costs. This conclusion is dependent upon 1) the ability to share a
shuttle mission, 2) reuse of the satellite, and 3) the resolution of
further, more detailed technical and schedule parameters. 
 
   Now, before I get jumped upon, a few additional comments: 

   o "But the satellite isn't designed for retrieval"... Neither was 
Palapa or Westar.  The astronauts hooked onto them using a "stinger" 
into their boost motors, despun them using the MMU, and then hand-placed 
them into their return cradles.  Intelsat VI should be able to be 
handled the same way. 

   o "This isn't the Shuttle's business."  Repair and retrieval of 
satellites was why the shuttle was designed.  If we can do it 
economically, then I think we should. (Cost discussions follow...) It 
should be noted the U.S. government is one of the major members of 
Intelsat, which includes representatives from 154 countries.  The U.S.  
government is one of the original signers of the Intelsat accord, and is 
committed by treaty.  U.S. government participation in Intelsat violates 
no current public policies, laws, or regulations. 

   o "Crew training costs are not included in the costs".  Actually, 
according to the OTA Independent Cost Assessment, crew training costs 
are covered (they included all JSC and KSC and MSFC shuttle-related 
costs in their average cost price).  The OTA included all primary costs 
for mission-unique crew training costs. And according to friends in the 
EVA training group at JSC, they should be able to accommodate such 
training as part of the standard training for an up-coming mission, 
given 6 months lead time prior to the mission.  (They train for EVAs on 
all shuttle missions).  They will have to build a training mockup for 
use in the water tank, but this will be built (if necessary) of chicken 
wire, PVC pipe, and plastic (standard materials).  I'd estimate costs at 
less than $200,000 for this, which puts it well into the "noise" on my 
cost estimates. 
                                   (Continued on next message, again!) 
--  
    Wales Larrison
....!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison             
               Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG 
    714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Wales Larrison)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Intelsat Recovery (3 of 3)
Date: 28 Mar 90 05:41:20 GMT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Gateway)
 
   o "Your Shuttle Costs are too low!"  The costs I'm using are from the 
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment independent assessment of 
shuttle costs for their report "Space Transportation Systems - A Buyer's 
Guide" (July 1988).  These are not NASA's cost estimates, but from an 
assessment of the true average costs of the shuttle system performed by 
the OTA, an independent group which reports directly to Congress.  
According to the report, and verified by my conversations with the OTA, 
these costs include an assessment of all the Shuttle-associated costs 
from all NASA centers, and includes mission support, mission training, 
ETs, SRBs, ground turnaround and refurbishment, and other associated 
shuttle costs.  There are some important assumptions - primarily the use 
of long term average costs.  This is in accord with standard economic 
and accounting practices - for example, McDonnell-Douglas did not price 
their first MD-11 aircraft at $3 billion (the development cost), but 
priced it at the long term average price they expect over a buy of 
several hundred aircraft.  Similarly, NASA should not charge the 
marginal cost of an additional flight (a substantially lower cost 
basis). Yes, there are other ways of allocating costs, but this seems 
(to me) to be the most sensible, and most supportable approach from 
economic and technical grounds. For further references, I would 
recommend "Pricing Options for the Space Shuttle", Congressional Budget 
Office, March 1985 (which must be updated for current baseline budgetary 
costs, but a good overall discussion); "Pricing Policies to Compensate 
for Cost Growth in the Space Transportion System", General Accounting 
Office, 1982 (also must be updated with current budgetary costs); 
"Understanding the Cost Basis for Space Shuttle Pricing Policies", by 
B.A. Stone in Journal of Parametrics, Vol 3., No.1 (general 
methodologies); and "Reducing Launch Operations Costs", U.S. Congress 
Office of Technology Assessment, September 1988. 

  o "Why Doesn't Intelsat Pay for an entire Flight?"  The Intelsat-VI 
series of satellites were designed for compatibility with the Space 
Shuttle (as well as Titan and Ariane).  When fully configured for 
launch, including Apogee and Perigee Kick motors, it occupied about 1/3 
of a shuttle payload bay in length.  The system to be returned does not 
have apogee and perigee kick motors, so it should be somewhat shorter 
and lighter, but to be conservative I assumed it would still require 1/3 
of the payload bay.  There is no current pricing policy for shuttle 
usage, but I assumed the old formula would apply - allocating the cost 
by fraction of weight or volume, and adjusting upwards for a 75% percent 
average load factor.  Since the Intelsat VI to be returned does not 
include its perigee or apogee kick motor (the heaviest system 
components),  the payload will be volume driven, not weight driven.  
Similarly, the launched weight to return the Intelsat-VI will be 
substantially less than the returned weight (just the cradle and EVA 
tools on the way up to orbit).  Costs are usually charged for launched 
fraction, rather than returned fraction - but I assumed the costs to the 
larger of the two. So, chargeable fraction is (20'/60')/.75 = .45, to be 
multiplied by the cost per flight (assumed to be $160-220 million). 

  o "Can Intelsat Reuse or Resell the satellite?"  Probably yes.  There 
are about 13 Intelsat satellites planned to be launched, of which this 
is number 2.  Rather than building a new satellite to fill out their 
constellation, they can probably just launch this one after 
refurbishment.  Refurbishment should not be substantial, since the 
satellite is designed for 10+ years in space, and the design does not 
have to be changed to meet someone else's specific needs.  Probably the 
small ACS thrusters used to circularize its orbit will be replaced (each 
is about $5-50,000 dollars).  And, of course, the system will have to be 
checked out again.  But if the savings are $30 million or so, there is 
still a substantial profit margin to break even.  
--  
    Wales Larrison
....!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison             
               Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG 
    714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 03/30/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 31 Mar 90 14:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 30, 1990                        Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
    This is NASA Headline News for Friday, March 30:
  
    The first stage of the Titan 3 booster that failed in its attempt
to place an Intelsat 6 satellite into geosynchronous orbit has
re-entered the atmosphere.   The U.S. Space Command confirmed the
rocket part either burned up or crashed into the Pacific Ocean,
Wednesday morning.  The upper stage remains in a tenuous low earth
orbit while the communications satellite is in a safe 300-mile high
orbit.  Representatives from Intelsat and Hughes Aircraft met for a
second time, earlier this week, with NASA engineers to discuss
possible options to rescue the satellite. No decision has been made on
a possible rescue effort. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA 
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.  
  
    Wednesday, April 4:
 
     1:00 P.M.    Coverage begins of Pegasus air-launch from
                  Ames/Dryden at Edwards, Calif.  B-52
                  departs at 2:00 P.M.  Air drop scheduled for
                  about 3:10 P.M.
  
    Thursday, April 5:
 
      11:30 A.M.   NASA Update will be transmitted.
 
All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, 
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA HQ.

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 05/16/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 16 May 90 16:32:10 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 16, 1990               Audio Service: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, May 16:
  
    It looks like a mission to retrieve a stranded Intelsat
communications satellite launched last March may be possible.
Associated Press reports payload manager William Green said if
Intelsat will pay the proposed $130 million in cost, NASA could 
rescue the 5-ton spacecraft in late 1991 or 1992.  Intelsat will 
decide in June.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA 
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.
  
    Wednesday, May 16:
 
                 12:00 Noon        Launch of Consort III, micro-
                                   gravity experiment flight from
                                   White Sands New Mexico.
                                   (Tape replay)
 
    Thursday, May 17:
 
                 11:30 A.M.        NASA Update will be transmitted.
 
                 12:00-2:00 P.M.   AMBLER planetary
                                   robot vehicle video followed
                                   by a series of video programs
                                   including:
                                   Mercury Program.
                                   Earth life of a spacecraft.
                                   Project Laser.
  
All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Select TV: Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band 72 Degrees 
West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 Noon, 
EDT.  This is a service of the Internal Communications Branch, 
NASA HQ.

    Orbital Sciences Corp (the Pegasus company) proposed an interesting
    rescue scenario to Hughes to get Intelsat VI F2 into transfer orbit.
    
    The shuttle would carry an OSC TOS (Transfer Orbit Stage) and its
    support equipment to LEO along with a relatively small adaptor ring.
    TOS uses the same Orbus 21 motor as the Intelsat had for its perigee
    kick motor, and in fact this TOS would use an Orbus 21 provided by
    Intelsat and the hardware used to certify TOS for flight (recently
    completed).
    
    An astronaut with MMU would dock with the adaptor ring and rendezvous
    with the despun Intelsat. The adaptor ring would then be attached to
    the base of the Intelsat by the astronaut. The astronaut would return
    to the payload and enter the airlock. The adaptor ring has RMS grapple
    point and the RMS would be used to manouver the satellite into the
    payload bay. The TOS would have be raised to a near vertical position
    in its support harness. Once in place, two astronauts would attach the
    satellite to the TOS, with the adaptor ring providing the TOS interface
    and connect the TOS avionics to the Intelsat's control system. Once
    complete, the astronauts return to the airlock and the TOS/Intelsat is
    'launched' (ejected by springs).
    
    I suspect this will appeal to NASA as another good demonstration of
    working in space (which it is). NASA have stated that they are willing
    to mount a rescue mission if Intelsat is willing to pay, but didn't
    specify if it would be the OSC plan.
    
    gary

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (WILLIAM HARWOOD, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.military,clari.news.urgent
Date: 13 Jun 90 21:16:07 GMT

	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) -- The owner of a $150 million
communications satellite stranded in a useless orbit agreed Wednesday to
pay NASA some $90 million to mount a bold spacewalk rescue mission
during the 1992 maiden flight of the shuttle Endeavour.
	The board of governors of International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization, known as Intelsat, also announced that
satellite-builder Hughes Aircraft Co. of El Segundo, Calif., will be
awarded a contract to provide a solid-fuel booster for the crippled
relay station, along with other required equipment.
	``This decision to reboost the Intelsat 6 caps an intensive effort
to rescue the stranded spacecraft that began hours after the satellite's
launch on March 14,'' Intelsat said in a statement.
	NASA has tentatively scheduled the flight for February 1992, the
first voyage of the space shuttle Endeavour, which is under construction
in California to replace the ill-fated Challenger. Endeavour also is
scheduled to carry a science satellite into orbit.
	``All of us at NASA are pleased with today's annoncement,'' said
former astronaut Robert Crippen, director of the shuttle program. ``The
rescue offers us the opportunity for expanding our experience base in
the planning, training and performance of (spacewalks). Knowledge gained
in this effort will help with the preparations for (construction of)
space station Freedom.''
	The mission, the fourth satellite rescue flight attempted by NASA,
will cost Intelsat about $90 million, subject to negotiation, with an
initial payment of $4 million required by July 2.
	``Once NASA demonstrated it was technologically feasible, we were
anxious to explore the situation,'' Intelsat spokesman Tony Trujillo
said in Washington.
	The Intelsat 6 spacecraft, the most powerful commercially built
television, telephone and data relay satellite ever built, was stranded
in a useless orbit March 14 when it failed to separate properly from the
second stage of its Titan 3 launch rocket because of a faulty Titan
ejection system.
	The only way to get the satellite away from the spent second stage
was to separate it from an on-board rocket that was to have boosted the
relay station toward its planned orbit 22,300 miles above the equator.
	The rescue plan calls for Endeavour to carry a new ``perigee kick
motor'' into orbit. After the shuttle completes a rendezvous, two
space-walking astronauts will attach the satellite to the motor.
	``The 20,000-pound perigee motor will be loaded onto the shuttle in
a cradle,'' Intelsat said in a statement. ``When the shuttle reaches the
satellite, the satellite will be brought up to the shuttle and attached
by the astronauts to the new perigee motor while it is still in the
cargo bay of the shuttle.
	``After the perigee motor is secured to the satellite, the
astronauts will activate mechanisms to separate the satellite-motor
combination from the shuttle.''
	Once Endeavour is a safe distance away, the motor will fire,
boosting Intelsat 6 into the proper orbit. Despite its trials and
tribulations, engineers say the satellite will have a 10-year lifespan
once on station over the Atlantic Ocean.
	While Intelsat will pay NASA some $90 million for the rescue -- plus
the price of a new booster -- the space agency may throw in another $6.9
million in specialized hardware required for the spacewalk repair job.
	``We're going to give them a break because such a mission would
offer NASA the opportunity for (spacewalk) development and training in
preparation for space station Freedom operations,'' said NASA spokesman
David Garrett.
	``We would be willing to consider offsetting certain optional
service costs in return for the specific training opportunities.''
	After Intelsat 6 was separated from the Titan 3 second stage in
March, ground controllers fired liquid-fueled thrusters to put the
satellite into a stable ``parking orbit'' 345 miles up where it will be
safe until the rescue mission is mounted.
	NASA has rescued or repaired four satellites during three
pre-Challenger shuttle missions. The first such mission came in April
1984 when the crew of the shuttle Challenger repaired NASA's Solar
Maximum Mission satellite, a sun-watching observatory in low-Earth
orbit.
	In one of the most dramatic such rescues ever attempted,
spacewalking astronauts pulled two stranded communications satellites
into the shuttle Discovery's cargo bay in November 1984 for return to
Earth and repairs. Both satellites were relaunched earlier this year.
	In an August 1985 mission, two spacewalkers successfully ``hot
wired'' a broken military communications satellite.

Edward Campion                                             June 13, 1990
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                            3:30 p.m. EDT
(Phone:  202/453-8536)


NASA STATEMENT REGARDING INTELSAT DECISION

     The following statement was released by Space Shuttle Director 
Robert L. Crippen today following the Intelsat announcement  of an 
agreement  between NASA and Intelsat  to rescue the Intelsat VI 
satellite.

     "All of us at NASA are pleased with today's announcement from 
the board of governors at Intelsat.   The rescue offers us the 
opportunity for expanding our experience base in the planning, 
training and performance of extravehicular activity.  Knowledge 
gained in this effort will help with the preparations for Space Station 
Freedom.  

     The quickness with which a rescue plan was proposed and 
accepted is a reflection of the excellent working relationship 
developed in the past betwen the Space Shuttle Program and the 
commercial satellite industry.

     We are very pleased to be able to assist Intelsat and to have an 
opportunity to once again demonstrate the versatility of the Space 
Shuttle ."


From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 14 Jun 90 18:08:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

    Any further news on the rescue?
    

It is planned for the first flight of Endeavour coming up in a couple months.

Burns

Article: 2440
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (WILLIAM HARWOOD, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.tw.aerospace,clari.news.aviation
Subject: Atlas 2 rocket launched
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 17:40:12 PDT
 
	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) -- A $102 million Intelsat
television satellite was boosted into orbit Tuesday, joining a relay
station repaired by spacewalking astronauts last month to help carry
coverage of the Summer Olympics. 

	Running three weeks late because of technical problems, a
commercial Atlas 2A rocket, built by General Dynamics, took off from
the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 8 p.m. EDT. It was the first
launch of an upgraded Atlas 2A, which features more powerful Centaur
second-stage engines. 

	Liftoff originally was scheduled for May 20, but the flight
was delayed twice because of concern about a second-stage
pressurization system. Engineers ultimately fixed the problem and the
rocket was cleared for a third launch try. 

	As it was, the launching came 48 minutes late Tuesday because
of cloudy weather. 

	Twenty-nine minutes after launch, the uninsured Intelsat K
satellite, built by GE Astro Space for the 122-nation International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization -- Intelsat -- was safely
ejected into the proper preliminary orbit. 

	Liftoff came nearly one month after three spacewalking
astronauts aboard the shuttle Endeavour pulled a crippled Intelsat
satellite into the ship's cargo bay for repairs May 13. After a
replacement rocket motor was bolted to the base of the satellite, it
was successfully relaunched and fired into the proper orbit. 

	While that satellite was built to handle both television and
intercontinental telephone traffic, Intelsat K was designed as a high-
power television relay station capable of linking Europe, North
America, and parts of South America with up to 32 TV channels. 

	After a series of on-board rocket firings to put the satellite
in a circular 22,300-mile-high orbit, Intelsat K will be positioned
over the equator at 338.5 degrees east longitude. If all goes well,
the relay station, which has an expected lifetime of more than 10
years, will be declared operational in July. 

	Among its first tasks will be to relay television coverage of
the Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain, later this summer, a task it
will share with the recently repaired Intelsat 6 spacecraft. 

	The new satellite is the 48th to be launched by Intelsat.
Prior to Tuesday's launch, Intelsat had 18 operational satellites in
orbit, including the one rescued by the Endeavour astronauts. 

	Ongoing work to check out and activate the repaired Intelsat 6
satellite forced consortium managers to hire GE Astro Space to handle
Intelsat K's initial maneuvers.