And refueling is not an option? There are also people on the ISS for example, when the crew refreshes they could do that "on the way there"... yeah I don't know anything about space, just an idea.
In this situation, an on-orbit refueling capability and a tug, a ship which can pick things up and change their orbit, and refuel itself would be worth the cost of these satellites because it would take currently unusable satellites and turn them into usable ones. Not clear what the salvage rights in space are yet.
United Launch Associates (ULA) has some great work they have done on making a practical on-orbit refuelling capability but nobody has stepped up to pay for it. This is something I am hoping SpaceX will do. Elon is the type of person who might fund that on the expectation of making back the investment in saving satellites. [1]
[1] I would charge the satellite insurer 1/2 the value of the satellite to put it into its proper orbit. Which saves the insurer from paying out the full amount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)...
Note that the Galileo satellites orbit somewhere around 18000 miles higher than the ISS.
This is a common misconception, however. For example, people want to know why Columbia didn't just buzz over and hook up with the ISS rather than burning up. They were at a different altitude from ISS and could not have made the jump with available fuel.
And due to the oddities of space travel, it costs a lot less delta-v to go from the Moon to Earth orbit than it does from Earth to Earth orbit, especially if you do aerobraking.
Isn't it? You drive, you burn fuel. You take more fuel with you, it costs more fuel to get going. Some vehicles (spacecraft or car) require more fuel to drive the same distance than others.
Sure, space flights are much, much more expensive, but I don't see how it's so different. If it's not worth it to spend the extra fuel to get there, refuel, and continue to the original destination, then just say so.
I'd refer you to the Rocket Equation [1].
- There is no way for the satellites to reach the ISS - There is no way for the ISS or the crew to reach the satellites - The ISS does not carry equipment to refuel satellites - The satellites are not equiped to be refueled in space
etc...
Yes, it was "just a movie," but you know what? Reality is pretty goddamned interesting, too. Hollywood should try it sometime.
Moreover, if you have to carry fuel for somebody else it gets that much harder to accelerate/decelerate like that.
For a good intuitive idea of how hard that would be, I strongly recommend kerbal space program.
Anyway, the point being that I never would have understood any of this no matter how many times I read 2010, until I wrote that little game. Some things need to be experienced to really grok.
I gained a true appreciation for difficulty of the kind of maneuvers that are common place in science fiction after spending time with Orbiter.
I remember my friend telling me he actually googled down some US Space Shuttle maunals and used the real checklists when launching in the game.