Was this a more economical approach than launching those missions on an expendable rocket, and just building brand new satellites?
The shuttle program launched 135 missions at a cost of $209 billion (2010 dollars).
The shuttle program launched 135 missions at a cost of $209 billion (2010 dollars).
Assuming you already have a Space Shuttle, then the answer was apparantely yes. Lloyd's of London, as insurers, paid NASA for the recovery of Westar 6 and Palapa B2. The cost of the recovery was said to be $10m, vs. the $180m insurance value of the satellites (both in 1980s dollars). [1]
I suppose many of today's satellites are relatively cheap and considered more expendable, but back in the 1980s these things were very valuable pieces of kit.
Besides, most of the retrieval missions performed by the Space Shuttles were not "failed" satellites but rather long-life science platforms that were designed to spend time in space and then be returned to earth for analysis. Now days, many of those sorts of missions can be performed on the ISS, but back then the shuttle was the only option.
[1] https://www.lloyds.com/about-lloyds/our-market/what-we-insur...
Hindsight brings sharper clarity because fifty years of distance changes how FUD looks in retrospect…