Columbus, scurvy, deformed space fetii and plaintiff lawyers

>
> Suppose that I launch a satellite intended for geosynchronous
orbit. The
> satellite itself is operating just fine after launch.
Unfortunately, the
> upper stage misfires, leaving the satellite stranded in an orbit
that is
> useless for its intended application.
>
> As I understand it, when such a scenario unfolds, the satellite is
declared
> lost and insurance money changes hands.

Partially true. Current contracts generally call for the construction
of two identical comsats where only one is required so you have
physical insurance in the case of any kind of launch malfunction
(after all, building a comsat from scratch can take several years; &
the cost of infrastructure not having a comsat to service can be
suitably astronomical... in comparison, the redundancy is actually
quite cheap in debt servicing terms). Insurance - & reinsurance (most
insurance companies spread the risk using reinsurance policies) -
then pays only for the additional cost of putting the replacement
bird in orbit; & any additional losses pertaining to the delay
between having the comsat launched second time around rather than the
first one.

If your burn two comsats, the insurance scenario plays out as you
describe; but the insurance - & reinsurance - companies in question
whould be taking a very serious look at your launch strategy....

> Why is it that today we don't launch a robot or person to go get the
> stranded satellite and return it to Earth for re-launch (or re-
boost it to
> its intended orbit)? Could it be that the high absolute level of
launch
> costs might have something to do with the fact that noone tries to
> fix/repair/return such satellites today?

Partially: Hughes (was RCA; now Boeing) self insured; & has managed
to pull some strings with NASA to do some underpriced salvage jobs;
but the reason repairs are generally not done are:

a) back up construction makes replacement launch always cheaper; &
b) even if you lost two comsats, the length of time it would take to
have a repair unit on the job would make it cheaper - & better (see
below) - just to fly a new comsat in its place, even if the repair
job was nominally cheaper than a new comsat.

Remember: based on real cost accounting, the cost of servicing debt
is an accruing cost; & tends IN ITSELF to be larger than the launch
cost - as anyone's who's borrowed money to buy a house would
understand (it can take more time to pay off the interest on the loan
than the loan itself). This scenario of cost based on time alone is
built into real financing models; but ignored by your highly
articifial schematic.

> Next, consider designing a new satellite under different design
> assumptions.
> Design Assumption A: The satellite will never be serviced by
any
> robot or human.
> Design Assumption B: The satellite will be regularly serviced
and
> maintained.
> Under which assumption is the development cost of the satellite
likely to
> be higher? Could it be that the high absolute level of launch
costs might
> influence the manner in which we design satellites, thus driving up
their
> price?

Not under current highly instable technological development
situations: in essence, it's actually often more cost effective to
build commercial satellites disposably (ie, with the intention that
they'll be replaced regularly; & have no potential for servicing
beyond software upgrades) because generation 5c (although likely more
expensive than generation 5b) will be extraordinarily more cost
effective because it has more money making toys attached to it.
Technology getting superceded even prior to launch - a major factor
in the Iridium debacle - is far more important a cost pressure for
commercial space than launch costs; & in one form or another has
crippled the viability of a number of technology recyclying proposals.

Development costs are only indirectly met by comsat consumers
nowadays because there are a number of companies - & countries -
competing for contracts (something USAmerican suppliers are learning
to their cost; as technology transfer regulations are seeing old
USAmerican customers going to Japan & Europe in particular); & the
new toy technologies are increasingly coming in off the shelf
(because of design lead times, comsat technology tends to be old
enough that it can utilise systems improvements from the outside
world rather than have to create them specifically forn launch).

i have to say, though: if a customer was dumb enough to want to
design something for any kind of postlaunch servicing, you would have
to pay for likely huge development costs; because you'd really have
to design the unit from scratch with that intent... & noone does it;
because it doesn't make economic sense.

> Finally, consider launching a worker into orbit for a trip of less
than one
> week of duration. Which is more challenging, launching the
worker, or
> keeping him or her alive for one week once launched?
>
> Ron Menich

Apart from the Hughes/NASA sweetheart deals mentioned above, noone
has proposed this scenario because the cost, time lag & superceded
technology problems means that it's better for insurers - &
reinsurers - to write off the losses of a major failure for the tax
advantages than attempt any kind of salvage operation (your approach
would generally be considered in the trade as a classic case of
throwing good money after bad). Manned flight being still at a
somewhat experimental stage, all of the tasks mentioned are
challenges at least competive & in some cases more so in difficulty
than simply replacing the bung comsat; which only improves the case
for junking the lost comsat.

At least one wouldbe reuseable (Pioneer Rocketplane - probably the
most economically sensible of all the RLV schemes, possibly a legacy
of its original military conception) used satellite replacement as
its main target market; but came unglued because the market for such
a system ultimately didn't make enough sense for the relatively huge
cost of developing the rocketplane technology in an environment where
cheap exSoviet ICBMs were only marginally more expensive than
Pioneer's planned price.

Welcome to real world of space development; where SFF press releases
& CATS manifestos don't apply....

Robert