Canadian Robot Could Rescue Hubble

NETHED writes "We have all seen Stories about The Hubble Space Telescope and its current problems. Since then, NASA has okayed the fix of the HST. It seems that America's neighbor to the North has some answers. Dextre to the rescue. The mission would not be decided upon until next summer says Sean O'Keefe. It seems that NASA saw this as a good way to listen to the public for about 1.6 billion dollars." Update: 08/11 15:45 GMT by T : Reader Michael Mol dug up a link with a more technical explanation of Dextre, noting "It looks like Dextre's normally supposed to be attached to something before it performs work."

Why bother?

[rabtech]

Are we going to run back to mommy every time we stub our toes in space?

Being on the frontier is dangerous; every single one of the astronauts knows this and signed up for it.

If any of them don't want to fly Space Shuttle missions anymore, then don't make them. But I'm sure enough would volunteer for a manned Hubble repair mission that it wouldn't be a problem.

Besides, we need to keep Hubble going; The Webb telescope is NOT a replacement for Hubble - it looks at different wavelengths; if we could ever get both of them operating at the same time they could be used in a complimentary fashion.

Re:Canadian Robot to fix Canadian Telescope

[gowen]

Canadians would've been first to the moon too, if they could've decided whether to call the mission "Moonshot One" or "Premier Projectile de Lune"

Seriously, I thought Hubble was joint NASA/EU Space Agency. Sure you're not thinking of the splendidly self deprecating Humble Space Telescope [about.com]

ISS Telescope

[grunt107]

Too bad all the competing projects do not work together. If the Hubble telescope was 'designed' for docking, it could have been pulled to the ISS and attached.
Since the seemingly forgotten ISS needs inhabitant refreshes every so often, the cost for upkeep of both could be lessened - parts could be sent w/the new batch and damaged parts returned w/old.

Re:Why bother?

[Timesprout]

Why not. I dont doubt astronauts would be prepared to fly the mission but why bother if a robot can do the job just as well. EVA's are a still a dangerous, clumsy undertaking, previous repair missions had all reported problems with the coldness affecting astronauts hands. OK a robot may not currently be as adaptable as an astronaut but when you are 160 miles up there is only so much you can do anyway should plan A fail. Robotic missions would be far cheaper and have a much faster turn around time.

And what about the bad PR should a manned mission fail in a ball of flames? You can see the headlines now, 'Six astronauts die to fix a bloody telescope we dont really need'.

Robots linked to a control center are the way of the future for this sort of mission so we may as well start using them now. There will still be plenty of mission opportunities for astronauts.

Canadian Robotics are the $hit

[DarkMantle]

However, most of our (Canada's) Research has gone into underwater exploration. This only makes sense since over 80% of our border is coastline. This is where to look for examples of canadian robotics.

Other examples of advances from canadians is some of the more advanced Meterology satallites that have been designed and developed here in our humble country.

For some references you can check out..
The ISE [subsea.org] Laval University [ulaval.ca]
and a list of others [umass.edu]

Re:ISS Telescope

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the Hubble telescope was 'designed' for docking, it
> could have been pulled to the ISS and attached. Since the
> seemingly forgotten ISS needs inhabitant refreshes every so
> often, the cost for upkeep of both could be lessened -
> parts could be sent w/the new batch and damaged parts
> returned w/old.

An excellent plan, sir, with two minor drawbacks[/kryten]:

"pulling" the Hubble to the ISS would take a larger rocket than launched it originally - they are in significantly different orbits and the energy required to go from one to the other is well beyond any existing rocket stage.

Attaching it to ISS would be worse than useless. The Hubble has to point accurately and stably over long periods. The ISS doesn't need to point very well at all, and vibrates continuously from various sources including the astronauts movements.

Re:Repairs

[netglen]

>>Ditching it may be stupid, but this is crazy.

I guess the main reason is that the damn thing is still cranking out incredible images and has a huge waiting list. Besides I consider the so called ditching solution by O'Keefe to be extremely lazy. If the replacement is so inexpensive, why not eventually have both devices serving the scientific community?

Is it just me or...

[Froze]

Does it seem like NASA made the most publically sucsessful project into a false sacrificial lamb in order that they might both increase their budget by special appropriation and appear to be managing their budget by cutting costs on supposedly outdated hardware.

It seems that their gambit is paying off. The public (ok, a bunch of geeks) wailed loud enough that congress is willing to consider special funding.

What does it get us?

[Engineer-Poet]

Hubble sees very well in the visible and the near UV, so if we want full-spectrum coverage of unknown objects we are not going to be able to get it with just the Webb telescope.

Re:NASA has become bloated, fat, and lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 80% of NASA's budget already goes to the private sector. the requested 2005 budget was on the order of $16 billion.

Just as a comparison:

DOD's 2005 budget is nearly $400 billion, and I don't think that includes the extras for the war in iraq.

if your a US citizen you get you chance in November to decide where your money is being best spent.

Re:Transfer Hubble to ESA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe not a full transfer, but turning it into a "hubble international space telescope" thing. Much more worthy than an ISS itself. America could provide the shuttle, other space agencies could work on improving the technology, budget would be split between participating nations, the space telescope institute would be made into some international agency, etc..

Re:Popular opinion wins out?

[gotem]

no, that would be the feet
you are only a big ass with feet and a hat.

Re:Why bother?

[Saeger]

I dont doubt astronauts would be prepared to fly the mission but why bother if a robot can do the job just as well.

Because some people still have romantic scifi notions of humans laboring in the new space frontier like heroic cowboys, when the reality is that increasing robotic/ai capability will be replacing many jobs [blogspot.com] starting with the most dangerous.

Timmy: "Mommy, when I grow up I want to be a RoboNaut [nasa.gov]"
Mom: "Ah... how cute - and your sister wants to be a 'My Little Pony' when she grows up."

--

Well gee.

[Burgundy Advocate]

That's only one tenth of the total NASA yearly budget. Definitely worthwhile so we can have pretty pictures for the few years between the Hubble and the James Webb.

This should be interesting... let's see how this one is spun. First it was BUSH HATES SCIENCE! I'm guessing we'll be back to BUSH IS PROPPING UP HIS CORPORATE CRONIES WITH CONTRACTS this time. Or do I hear a conspiracy theory dealing with how this was all a underhanded ploy to get more funding than originally provisioned?

Honestly, I'm probably not creative enough to come up with a high-quality spin. *sigh*

Re:Why bother?

[Lumpy]

But I'm sure enough would volunteer for a manned Hubble repair mission that it wouldn't be a problem.

Except for NASA management, every single engineer on this planet would go up in the shuttle without question. I have a family at home and if the incompetent Management at NASA was replaced, I'd go without a second thought. The hardware is sound, yes mishaps happen, but's it's awfully safe if all the engineer's are listened to.

both shuttle mishaps were preventable and lie on the hands of management ignoring engineer concerns. remove that problem and you will solve all of the shuttle's problems.

Re:Beer

[red floyd]

OK, I'm an asshole, I admit it. OK?