Boeing: Space shuttles to last into next decade

In article ,
(Jay Masino) writes:

That's interesting, since NASA routinely sends payloads into orbit on
spacecraft other than the shuttle. The three that I work on (EOS/Terra,
EOS/Aqua, EOS/Aura) are all non-shuttle payloads. If I remember right,
Terra and Aqua were launched using Atlas Centaur rockets, launched from
Vandenburg AFB in California.

Oh, they do now, but only after the Challenger disaster left us almost
completely without any launch capability!

The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.

The "on-orbit repair station" concept was a non-starter for two reasons:

1) The shuttle only reaches a low orbit of a couple hundred miles. There are
few satellites in that orbit. Almost all are in higher orbits between 10,000
and 22,000 miles.

Of course, NASA had an answer for this. In the '70s, NASA actually
contemplated a "rover", which would be carried up and deployed by the shuttle,
would boost itself up the required higher orbit, retrieve the errant satellite,
bring it back to the shuttle, which would then return to earth. Of course,
after the shuttle concept was sold, the "rover" concept was shelved as both too
expensive and unworkable.

2) It never made economic sense to "repair" satellites. Most of the cost of a
satellite is in R&D, launch, and support operation. When one fails, the
operator really doesn't want it back. They'd rather launch a new, updated one.
(when's the last time you took your consumer electronics in for repair vs just
replacing it? Does it make sense paying $300 to fix your 486 PC when you can
get a brand new one for $400?) Either way, there aren't many satellites worth
half-a-billion, which is what a shuttle launch costs.

John