Over at spacenews there is a report on an Israeli startup, called Effective Space Solutions which is proposing to use a microsatellite with an Ion drive to salvage the currently stranded Galileo satellites, as well as to provide extended lifespans for current satellites.
The 250-kilogram DeOrbiter, using ion-electric propulsion, is designed to perform multiple missions — more than 20, the company says — attaching and detaching from target satellites before being retired.
...
While the Galileo orbit-injection failure allowed EFS to ride a publicity wave, the principal mission of DeOrbiter is to extend the life of otherwise healthy satellites, mainly in geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers over the equator, where commercial telecommunications satellites operate.
Interestingly it also looks like the company also has several competitors eyeing the robotic recovery and rescue of in-orbit satellites as a viable business.
Full Story at over at Spacenews.com
Related Stories
El Reg reports
Russian aerospace firm's kit fails on 46th mission
The embarrassing incident that two of Europe's Galileo satnav craft [landed] in the wrong orbit has been attributed to "a shortcoming in the system thermal analysis performed during stage design" for the launch [vehicle] Fregat's fourth stage, built by Russian aerospace outfit NPO Lavochkin.
As we reported back in August, two [failures] meant two Gallileo sats landed in the wrong orbit, causing much hand-wringing at the European Space Agency. The mess was later blamed on a software bug.
But Arianspace, the commercial launch operator that sent the birds aloft, now says that wasn't the case and that the mission's fourth stage was built to fail.
An internal investigation found that the three stages of the Soyuz launcher all performed as expected. But Fregat struck problems "at the beginning of the ballistic phase preceding the second ignition of this stage".
[...]failure was due to a temporary interruption of the joint hydrazine propellant supply to these [two attitude control] thrusters.
The interruption in the flow was caused by freezing of the hydrazine.
The freezing resulted from the proximity of hydrazine and cold helium feed lines, these lines being connected by the same support structure, which acted as a thermal bridge.
[...]sounds a bit like someone didn't properly account for how cold the launch vehicle would get, which froze its fuel, which in turn meant the rockets didn't fire enough or soon enough to get the satellites into the desired orbit.
This reminds me of the Space Shuttle that had been launched successfully many times, then in 1986 some suit at NASA decided that manufacturer's thermal specs for components didn't really matter.
Remember Feynman's glass of ice water?
Related:
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:54AM
If they can hack this, it would be wonderful.
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 31 2014, @09:40AM
Well from what I understand the Ion drives while weak are VERY efficient and when you figure how much one of these birds cost AND how much the launch costs I can see how sending up a micro drone to work as a slow but steady tugboat to move these birds into either a correct orbit or even move them so the ISS could be used as a refurbing station would be the most cost effective solution.
Personally i say anything that cuts down on the amount of useless space crap we have in orbit is a damned good thing, so I wish them nothing but luck.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @10:23PM
launching small payloads into space on their own is horribly inefficient. that's why most micros hitch a ride with the big boys.
finding a launch window to establish an orbit intersecting an existing low earth orbiting satellite with nothing but an ion drive seems technically impossible, but i haven't dealt with orbital mechanics for a while.
makes for good hype though, and any hype for privatization of the space industry has got to be good since governments are going broke all over the world and usually never engage in anything beyond military applications anyway (even if they appear on the surface to be civil/scientific).
planning and talk is cheap, and applications in space are also relatively cheap. when someone solves the problem of cheap, regular, reliable and safe access to low earth orbit from ground, then they will be truly deserving of as much hype as space fanatics everywhere can muster.
my personal opinion is that mixing conventional turbofan technology with efficient aerospike rocket nozzle design and a development approach similar to that applied in early x projects (low cost, low bureaucracy, limited goals, etc) has the best chance, and a not-for-profit r&d org supported financially by subsidiary enterprises might have a decent chance, but regardless of how its done won't happen for the time being due to unfavorable socioeconomic conditions (space just isn't a priority for most people atm).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @08:18AM
Launch everything into space! Turn the planet inside out! Then live on the insides! It'll be the greatest navel gazing project OF ALL TIME>!!@!!!!!1!1!1!!!!