New Mars Forums

All of your comments are correct, in some ways.

My company is also developing a space tug similar to Orbital Recovery, although we do not advertise as much

The lunch cost of the hardware is not the main factor in the cost of the mission.  The development and operation over the tug over the rescue mission time is very costly, not counting the cost of the risk of using a new design in the GEO ring (either through direct insurance costs or self insured risk of failure).

We find it very difficult to justify a single mission, even if the total cost of the rescue is less then 50%.  The main reason is the risk of failure of the old satellite.  Regardless, there are some very expensive satellites that will worth a mission.

These life extension missions are the first step in this market.  As the robotic rescue business side of the industry mature, the customers (the Commercial operators) will want their new satellites with some upgrades capability to reduce the risk of major failures like a station keeping engine failing, or a solar array shorting out.  At this time, we can not offer upgrade services, because the satellites are not designed for it, and they will not be designed for until simpler successful missions do happen.

It does not make sense at this time to bring the satellite back down to LEO for human interventions.  It is too costly and risky (for the satellites, and for the human that would work on a possible aging time bomb).

This industry is starting with small steps, and will keep on going to more challenging mission.