I Repurposing Satellites: Maximizing the Lifespan of Space Technology

[Scott Ryals]

With the new blackjack spy sats coming, what happens to the existing ones? Could they be repurposed for astronomy?:

 

[russ_watters]

With the new blackjack spy sats coming, what happens to the existing ones? Could they be repurposed for astronomy?:

Nice thought, but unfortunately no. While the optics might be comparable, the cameras are surely very different. Because of the long exposures, astronomy cameras are kept cold to limit noise. And they carry lots of specialized filters.

 

[Klystron]

I remember reading feasibility studies while the space shuttle program was online whether the extreme costs and orbital differences made artificial satellite capture and subsequent re-purpose worth the mission costs, including transferring or upgrading ground control and data collection. The Hubble space telescope (HST) repairs and upgrades while in orbit indicates the method works. Voluminous data collected via the HST after repairs indicates mission cost justification as knowledge base expands.

Even if satellites can be re-purposed from the ground and a maintenance space mission launched to change cameras and lenses for astronomy, would cost savings exceed the expense of launching new satellites?

[Follow-on question] If satellite maintenance missions become cost effective, should a world-wide effort to retrieve 'old space junk' be maintained?

 

[Scott Ryals]

It seems to me that the public will, for the most part, not give a hoot until something horrific happens.

Do you think that a retrieval charge could be tacked onto the price of a launch? If the money was pooled it could support clean up efforts. Space junk is, after all, litter. It is generally recognised that polluters should be held responsible for their pollution.

Would the cost stifle the space industry? Should it be funded by governments?

This problem needs general recognition and debate amongst the population. It's not going to get better on its own.

 

[phinds]

Do you think that a retrieval charge could be tacked onto the price of a launch?

Not a chance. As a global effort it's a non-starter and I find it VERY doubtful that it could be done in the US, although that would at least be possible.

 

[Klystron]

This problem needs general recognition and debate amongst the population. It's not going to get better on its own.

Interesting comment. That appears to be the current policy -- what a NASA flight engineer* once called "Mary's little lamb" method after the nursery rhyme -- for space debris in certain orbits, the orbits will decay and the objects disintegrate in the upper atmosphere ("Leave them alone and they will come home...").

The USAF has satellite retrieval programs, likely classified. The scope of the problem requires global effort. Does the UN have a NASA equivalent with funding?

*possibly Chris Kraft? https://www.amazon.com/dp/0452283043/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Rive]

With the new blackjack spy sats coming, what happens to the existing ones? Could they be repurposed for astronomy?:

Might be relevant
Worth noting the delay (from the donation to the plans established) and the extent of necessary modifications (which is hard to expect to happen in space).

[Follow-on question] If satellite maintenance missions become cost effective, should a world-wide effort to retrieve 'old space junk' be maintained?

I think what's 'up' should stay 'up' if possible/feasible: worst case as raw material. All those plans to bring some asteroid materials to Earth orbit (mining)... 'Retrieving' materials what we put on orbit with so much effort somehow feels wasteful.