NASA Seeks Proposals For Hubble Robotic Servicing 182
hcg50a writes "SpaceFlight Now has an article about NASA asking for proposals to mount a robotic mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Such a Hubble-servicing mission would occur toward the end of calendar year 2007. If you like politics mixed with your spaceflight, you can read NASA Administrator O'Keefe's speech in which the announcement was made."
Extending the technology (Score:5, Insightful)
JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody has become so obsessed with safety that it's starting to hinder our progress as a species. Not only in the field of exploration but in medical sciences and new drug development, too.
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the technology is in place, and enough CEOs get it in their heads that it's feasible, you'll start to see off-world resource exploitation. The side-effect of that exploitation, of course, is human exploration of the solar system.
NASA is doomed, end of story.
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame Carly!!!!!!
Blame George!!!!
Blame the laywers!!!
And blame the fact that an outsourced droid doesn't have family that can sue if it goes out in a blaze of glory.
Robots or humans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but at what cost?
Do we really want a corporate death-grip on space exploration and, in time, resource exploitation? Governments we can change by voting, corporate boards we can't (unless we can afford to buy a crapload of stocks in the said corp).
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:2, Insightful)
Demanding human space exploration has nothing to do with sentiment. 1) There are tasks robots can never accomplish (read my post above), 2) The sooner we master the art and science of getting off this planet, the better our chances for survival as a species are. We must colonize other planets - not tomorrow but NOW!
Sending out robots and probes is nice armchair exploration, but it won't help us when (not if) the next extinction level event hits the Earth.
and where exactly... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Finally, NASA's space astronomy activities are integral to the President's vision of extending humanity's exploration and discovery horizons. As we pursue this vision, we will continue to build space-based telescopes to expand our capabilities."
does that make it political?
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok. Let's just lie down and wait for the next extinction level event to wipe us out. No use in sending probes out there either because it's all futile.
The fact that we're still loitering around in the relativel safe LEO accounts for the boredom and scientifical uselessness. It's the same thing as if the Great Explorers hadn't had the courage to venture out to the deep sea and had kept sailing safely within the sight of the coast.
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:4, Insightful)
You could always incorporate with like minded individuals if you have some goals that you think no one else is paying enough attention.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price of Robot vs new Hubble (Score:3, Insightful)
Build/develope a robotic servicing system, you've opened up hundreds of servicing opportunities in space.
Hubble cost about 1.5 billion and has a yearly cost of about 250 million.
Re:Extending the technology (Score:5, Insightful)
If you truly believe that, then you have completely missed the point of going to space at all.
Moreover they took on all the limitations of the airplane. 5 operational craft were constructed, two have been lost. The suggestion is that each craft has a lifespan on the order of 25 flights. All failures to date have been catastrophic, with 7 fatalities apiece.
One of the major problems of the space shuttle was that they couldn't fly it enough. How many test flights do you think a fighter plane gets before it goes into production? How many test flights of the shuttle were there? 3 or 4?
Furthermore, for you to say that all of the failures have been "catastrophic" is blatantly incorrect. They had problems with the tiles from day one that were not catastrophic. They had electrical problems, engine problems of various types and other equipment problems. There have been very few flights that have not had at least one failure of one component or piece of equipment. It's the nature of mechanical and electrical systems to fail at some point and that is to be expected, anticipated, and planned for. NASA does this, for the very most part. The catastrophic failures to date have been with those components for which there were not backups and no failsafe alternatives. That is the part they need to better identify: to overcome the engineering bias that produces blindspots in our perception of what can and cannot reasonably be conisdered a potential single point of failure.
actually... and let's define terms (Score:5, Insightful)
People die driving race cars each year to what end? Dale Earnhart is practially a saint [daleearnhardtinc.com]. We're willing to pour our hearts out and spend billions each year to shove more people into the breach in order to turn left for four hours. So manned space flight is hardly the most risky endeavor we undertake with arguably more return. Where does NASCAR or CART get us? Cars that can do even more speed than is legally allowed? No - they push the envelope of car technology. Ditto all spaceflight. Swap out the Tallageda with RC cars and tell me how many people will show up... Race car drivers are brave and passionate and accept the risks. Ditto astronauts.
It's not about ratings. What the networks think about space missions is moot - there's NASA TV, so the networks are out of the picture. 90% of what NSF and NIH funds is boring and tedious to the general public - but there are people alive today because of it.
As far as robotics is concerned, it's be nice to know what they're aiming for - remember the Solar Max and both Hubble missions? Lots of human decision making involved, improvisation and creativity - if they're talking telerobotics (as in telerobotic surgery) then they've got a prayer. But if anyone has in their mind that they're going to line up autonomous robots to give the Hubble a new lease, then they need to go back to the DARPA challenge and remember that Apollo 11 would have been just another crater on the moon with a robot at the helm instead of human pilots who could avert the near disaster. Robots are better at some things - humans are better at some things. Use them both appropriately, drop the prejudices and accept the risks of exploration.
Hey, forgetting something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, while playing around with that much latency isn't fun, it's also not too hard to beam signals up that far... Why don't we just use a "robot" in the battle-bot sense for this, and have an R/C fixer go up there?
I mean, it's not nearly as nifty, but it's also pretty fool-proof compared to sending up an AI. Maybe a mix approach would work, like our Mars Rovers, or maybe after the gyros & whatnot are fixed on hubble, we let it go AI on other less-critical repairs?
Sound logical to anyone else?
Re:Price of Robot vs new Hubble (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one had, I applaude NASA's attempt to get the robotic technology to this point. On the other, this is NOT the mission. We have a deadline that has to be met and an instrument that will be lost if we screw it up. It would be better to pick a nontime-critical project with fewer worries about breaking something valuable if something goes wrong. Worse, this is about the most tricky project you could try for a beginning. HST was designed to be serviced by astronauts, that's true. But it doesn't make it easy to do. As I recall, the astronauts had great difficulty manuvering stuff in and out, not to mention getting the door on HST closed afterward. A robot doesn't stand a chance.
Frankly, I don't think O'Keefe is out to save HST. I think he only hopes to de-orbit it. That's the way he prioritized it (rightly) and I suspect that at the end of the summer we're going to hear something like, "Oh, dear. While we can deorbit Hubble, the repair looks too difficult/expensive. Oh, well." Meanwhile, the dogs have been called off of O'Keefe and when he makes the final decision there will be less of a chance to reverse it.
Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I'm predicting as ISS resumes contruction and deadlines loom, they'll be taking ever bigger gambles with the shuttles and the lives of the astronauts to build it. Keep an eye on the details when they return to flight and see how many of the CAIB's recommendations are really followed. O'Keefe promised that every one of them had to be done (which is why, he claims, SM4 is too dangerous), but I'm betting that if we go back and check we'll see that many weren't taken care of. For example, see if they have that autonomous repair kit when they fly to ISS.
Opportunity to prove it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, there is no such thing as a "normal shuttle mission" anymore. Shuttle missions are almost completely over. Maybe a few more trips to the ISS, but you will never again see a shuttle sent to service a satellite. (Servicing satellites is nearly worthless anyhow. The Hubble is the only satellite in history with a replacement cost greater than a traditional shuttle mission)
(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS)
The feasibility is: None. The ISS is just too far away from the Hubble. You can't reasonably visit them both in a single trip (without a huge, huge expense of carrying extra fuel "just in case").
There's just no reason to think about bringing a robot to the ISS. If the robot fails somehow, tough. Let it drift or fall or whatever, it's no matter to us. The price of the robot body itself is trivial next to the retrieval cost.
Oddly enough we are a throw away society, we still use booster rockets that are disposible.(I know that part of the booster rocket system is reusable but I don't remember which of the top of my head. is it the small ones?)
It's not "Oddly", it's a small island of sanity in a wasteful space program. The shuttle's boosters are disposable because it's just cheaper that way. For some things, refilling and refurbishing is more expensive (and far more risky) than building a new one. If more of the shuttle had been disposable, then the whole 30-year project budget would've been much less. (Except that then it wouldn't be called a "shuttle", because shuttles are by definition reused)
Please NASA do not make this a one use robot, I bet over time it would cost more money.
You bet wrong. The expensive thing about a robot isn't building the actual machine- those guys from Monster Garage could handle that in a few weeks. The real hard work is the design, for both hardware and "AI" software.
Re:Nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's what Bush called it. He has admitted publically that he joined the Guard to avoid the draft.
That is funny, so he dodged the military draft by joining the military.
It's complicated, you'll have to think hard. But being drafted for Vietnam and volunteering to defend Texas are actually very different things. (Bush almost got 500 flight hours, which would've let him rotate to Vietnam... but whoops, he was disqualified from flying!)
Hmmm, yeah somehow his father is going to get him off the hook for dereliction,
Yep, that's exactly it. Military commanders are not willing to risk irritating Congressmen by getting their sons either killed or court martialed. Especially not if that father was a famous veteran. (That's the same reason Al Gore got a noncombat assignment)
Any other pilot who skipped out on his physical to get disqualified from his only useful job would've been at best a dishon.
I guess his old commander that a few months back said he remembered seing Bush there is part of this hugh Right-Wing Conspiricy cover up too, huh?
Or he just doesn't want to admit to failing to control his unit back then. It's more interesting that NO National Guardmen who served with Bush remember him there. It's tough to be on a base for 8 months without making at least one friend- that George must've been really shy!
My point was that Clinton downsized the military drastically.
And who created that downsizing plan, back before Clinton even took office? Rumsfeld...
Secondly, it isn't the saluting, but the fact that you can just tell Bush has respect for the military, where as Clinton didn't.
You can "just tell", huh? Ok, trusting your instincts... but I can just tell that Bush is an idiot, where as Clinton wasn't. Why, just yesterday, Bush claimed that WWII started with a sneak attack on the USA...
And hey, when Bush fired Shinseki for explaining that more troops would be needed to safely hold Iraq- that was really respectful, you think?