NASA Seeks Proposals For Hubble Robotic Servicing

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."

International Space Station

[turgid]

Now, if only they would make some robots to operate and maintain the International Space Station, they wouldn't have to risk peoples' lives going there for political reasons, and they can wait until they have developed a safer and cheaper launcher and retire the travesty of engineering unholiness that is the Space Shuttle.

Or they could just pay the Russians to launch all their astronauts...

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[earthstar]

hey!
It isnt jus the lost of life that is a problem! Even greater problem is that the Reputation of NASAis at stake.
People would then only be talking that " The NASA doesnt know to b ring back their people alive... -so would other countries comment!

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[JessLeah]

What the fuck is the point of NASA -existing- if they aren't doing human space travel? Commercial entities are already doing unmanned stuff in space (read: satellites out the wazoo) better and cheaper than NASA ever could. NASA's great claim to fame is its achievements with humans in space-- not robots! It's no big deal to put a 'bot in space (unless that 'bot is something spectacular like Hubble), but landing men on the moon is something special...

Hope this works but...

[Linus Sixpack]

Another article I read mentioned decomissioning a lot. NASA needs to attach some sort of engine to hubble to be able to crash it safely where it wont kill anyone.

I hope they are able to service it, but I think they might be more concerned with how its going to fall.

ls

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

Ah, yes, but to the robot-space-exploration mob, who now after two shuttle disasters are unfortunately winning the fight for politicians' hearts, it is heresy to claim that there are tasks that humans do better than robots. It's the classical cheapskate argument that appeals to the PHBs: instead of sending a human up in space we can send so and so many robots for the same money and no risk of a PR fallout.

And then they wonder why the public finds space exploration boring and don't want to pay for their remote controlled "exploration" either.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got news for you. The most exciting thing humans have ever done in space - the moon missions - was exciting exactly once. By the Apollo 12 mission, lots of people were complaining to the TV networks that their programmes weren't on because of all the boring moon stuff. Apollo 13 raised the figures again, but I don't think you're really calling for an "all disaster, all the time" approach to manned spaceflight, are you?

Modern day manned spaceflight is as boring as you like. "The crew are a mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician" pretty much sums it up. Who cares?

So manned spaceflight is

a) a regular PR disaster
b) boring when it isn't being disastrous
c) scientifically pointless

whereas robotic spaceflight is

a) not a disaster
b) no more boring than manned spaceflight
c) scientifically useful

Robots win!

Nuts

[pubjames]

Finally, NASA's space astronomy activities are integral to the President's vision of extending humanity's exploration and discovery horizons.

I hate how everything has to be stated as if it was Bush's ideas and vision that pushes the country. Why couldn't he say "NASA's space astronomy activities are integral to our vision of extending humanity's exploration and discovery horizons." Bush is neither scientist nor visionary.

It's like the joke that Bush is supreme commander of American troops -- a man who has no real military experience. If I was in the armed services I would find that insulting.

Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[shuz]

I believe we as a nation and world you proceed with caution with the endevour of Robotics servicing. Eventually I can see automated stations to be an in space launch bed for satelites as well as increasing human missions. First I feel we need to develop robotic repair vehicles slowly. Create a vehicle send it up but also send up the human factor as well. I would suggest testing this robotic repair vehicle on a "safe" satelite that needs maintanence that a normal human shuttle mission would do. Give us the option to both closely monitor the first robotic repair vehicle in space as well as keep the option to retrieve and or repair the satelite with a human shuttle. The design of this robotic vehicle should be one that can use the international space station as a docking platform. Make it reusable with either a cheap hydrogen/oxygen drive or put in an ion drive(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS). 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?) Lets work together with the EU, Russia, China, and the Japanese and develop this next space technology, a permanent space repair robot. Please NASA do not make this a one use robot, I bet over time it would cost more money. Thank you

It will be interesting to see.

[howman]

The article leaves the possibilitys open for unmanned launch and repair/upgrade systems to be developed. I can see some of the teams from the autonomous challange, as covered to death here on /. in recent months, being quite interested in developing this technology.
I am all for sending people into space as being there is part of the point, but I am very interested in the technology that will come out of these proposals over the next 20 years.
If we look at some of the things that have made their way into our homes thanks to r+d from NASA, I can see a time when not only is may car built a la Minority report Lexus, but it can be repaired just as easily in the same fashion.
Here, in Japan, we have these great car washes that you park your car under and they move from the front to the back cleaning and then drying. I don't know if they are around the US, I have not seen any in Canada, but it would be nice , when my car breaks down, or that crazy useless check engine light comes on, if I can just pull into one of these things, pop in my warranty card, and have the machine fix whatever is wrong with it.
granted lots of hard working people, as we see the workforce right now, would lose their jobs if it were to all of a sudden come into being, but given time and reclasification of jobs, I think that in the same way typesetters became typests become data entry clerks, assembly line workers will become robotic assembly line technitions.
On another note... I started to fully understand 'whither' about three quarters of the way through his speech...

Price of Robot vs new Hubble

[gdesignrr]

While a custom robot designed to repair the Hubble sounds cool, how much is something like that really going to cost, compared to ... say... a new Hubble?

Re:Nuts

[acidrain69]

I find it funny that you are a short-sighted flag waving cheerleader who has to bring clinton up for bush's mistakes. I don't defend clinton. I have a general hatred for politicians, and I wish they had kicked him out of office, BUT; Clinton didn't try to drag the country into unpopular wars on false pretenses. Clinton didn't destroy or highly damage our credability abroad. Clinton isn't a right wing psycho, with a crazy cabinet such as Donald "unknown known unknowns" Rumsfeld, or John "I hate happiness and art, lets clothe the justice statue" Ashcroft. I'd take Clinton over bush any day of the week.

Bush's vision of Nasa's future is a pipe dream. Lets go to Mars, and stop at the moon on the way and use it as a base? Wha exactly are we going to DO on mars? Would it be a triumphant occassion? Sure. Would it really do anything in the long run? Maybe, but I bet not. Going to a planet within our solar system is a LOT different than finding ways to reach beyond that solar system. Don't give me bullshit about testing new technologies, you can send up a rocket and not have to send it to a planet to test engine theories.

A mission from scratch in three years?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I don't think so. We haven't done that for a very long time.

I'm not sure we've ever done that, frankly.