NASA - Robotic Repair Of Hubble 'Promising' 185
mykepredko writes "According to CNN, using a robot to repair/update the Hubble observatory is much more feasible than NASA originally believed. According to the article, the desires for keeping Hubble operational, while keeping shuttle astronauts safe seems to be the impeus for suggesting robotic repair of the satellite. The article goes on to discuss 'Robonaut' and 'Ranger robot', two machines which can approximate the capabilities of a space-suited astronaut. I'm wondering if these robots could be used for the ISS assembly/maintenance, minimizing crew EVAs while maximizing assembly time and hopefully reducing costs."
My question (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is why didn't the design hubble to be repaired in this way in the first place? The cost launching the space shuttle is around 375 million dollars [psu.edu].. Probably more for a space walk..
I don't accept that you can't design a repair bot for under that launch cost?
Simon
Re:My question (Score:5, Insightful)
Build a replacement module (Score:2, Interesting)
Natural selection is working in space against astronauts and for robots.
Re:My question (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm glad you put "please" in scare quotes, because don't you kid yourself, more often than not ir really annoys the hell out of the clients, but it's the most profitable method for Microsoft.
One need not even evoke the "Evil Empire" clause for this. Software is simply one of those fields where if you released a final version and left it at that you would soon reach market saturation and then go out of business.
Which is what w
Re:My question (Score:2)
Now THAT is a great idea! If only someone would put it in practice!
Re:My question (Score:2)
Re:My question (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA is great, but its a bit difficult to run an agency with 20-year projects when everything changes every 4.
Re:My question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My question (Score:2)
Why the hell did they put the ISS so far from Hubble? Shouldn't they be, like, next door, or at least just up the block?
Re:My question (Score:5, Informative)
The orbit of the ISS was altered after the russians got onboard the project so that they could reach it from their launccomplex - even if it meant that the shuttles could carry somwhat less up there. I don't know if the original planned orbit would have put the ISS in a better position in regard to the issue at hand, ie making possible a shuttleflight that could reach both Hubble and the ISS (which even had a different name back then since it wasn't international)
Re:My question (Score:2)
Re:My question (Score:2)
Geosyncronous orbit is 22,500 miles. The ISS and space shuttle orbit at around 200 miles [nasa.gov]. That is why the ISS can be seen from the ground.
The hubble is more or less parked in it's orbit because it doesn't hav
Re:My question (Score:2, Insightful)
Russian access a bonus (Score:2)
Re:My question (Score:2)
Why the hell did they put the ISS so far from Hubble? Shouldn't they be, like, next door, or at least just up the block?
The space station has to be easily accessible to the Ruskis
Simon
Re:My question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My question (Score:3, Funny)
I would be willing to believe it. Just the other day my $300 autonomous vacuum cleaner [roombavac.com] decided to get lost, drive off the stairs and break itself. It didn't even have to survive in space. When it comes down to it, I don't have a lot of faith in robots at the moment.
Re:My question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My question (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a robot now that has that sort of control, and to answer the question: was there one when Hubble was designed?
Re:My question (Score:2)
Re:My question (Score:4, Informative)
It's not. The average cost of a shuttle flight is actually more like $1,000,000,000. However, pricing shuttle flights is complicated because that's almost entirely due to fixed costs of running the shuttle side of NASA: the variable cost of flying another shuttle once those fixed costs are covered for the year is about $200,000,000.
Re:My question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My question (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, back in the 1970's when it was designed there was this "Really Great" new technology called the "Space Shuttle" that was supposed to make the cost of getting things into orbit downright cheap. With 100 launches a year, completely reusable, and safe!
The dimensions of the cargo bay on the shuttle were more or less dictated by the hubble.
Re:My question (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, you have that backwards: the dimensions of the Hubble were dictated by the shuttle's cargo bay, which dimensions in turn were dictated by the military [si.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My question (Score:4, Interesting)
Because, if they had designed it to be robotically repaired, they would have had to make the design for robotic capabilities of 14 years ago. At that time robotics were so bulky/heavy/difficult to precisely control that sending a robot to repair such a delicate instrument in such a hostile environment was, literally, unthinkable.
Conversely, in another 20 years after the next-gen telescope has been in orbit for 15 years, someone on slashdot will inevitable ask why didn't we design it today to be able to be serviced by the super high power remote laser dohicky from the front lawn of the White House.
Of course this question will immediately be followed by does it run Linux, and In Soviet Russia...
Re:My question (Score:2)
Re:My question (Score:2)
The answer is simple if you think about it... Hubble was designed in the 1970's, when robotic technology wasn't particularly advanced. (It's pretty hard to design something to be serviced by something else... when that something else simply doesn't exist.) Almost all modern 'robotic' technology is actually 'computer' technology as it depends on the small, fast, and powerful microprocessor. Even so, robots and t
Other uses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Other uses (Score:5, Interesting)
The article does not mention that, but I think these robots will be remotely controlled from the earth. This is the simplest way to do it in earth orbit. Why bother with a complicated computer intelligence, when you can use a human operator? Of course, this wouldn't work for mars because of the time lag.
Also I wonder what kind of a power supply do they use? If they are really the size of a man, they don't have plenty of room for bulky fuel cells, which means that their autonomous time must be pretty short.
Re:Other uses (Score:2, Interesting)
Only if the robot wasn't designed for reasonably quick movement. Remember that the robot still has inertia, even in zero-grav situations. If the robot was designed for such movement, they'd have needed to take into account the stresses of, for example, the arm moving relative to the torso.
Re:Other uses (Score:2)
Re:Other uses (Score:2)
Re:Other uses (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry but no, AI isn't there yet.
The current repair robots are obviously remote-controlled.
Ping time to Earth orbit is a few ms.
Ping time to the Moon is 2.5 s.
Ping time to Mars varies between 10-30 min.
So to build something on Mars you need a robot that can do useful work for around 30 min between commands. For the moment this is science fiction, and not in the surely-can-be-built category.
Re:Other uses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other uses (Score:3)
Hubble (Score:3, Funny)
Am I the only one who thought of the Power Rangers when reading this? NASA seems to be mixing work with play...
It would be nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad to see NASA go down the tubes by playing it safe.
NASA is not a commercial airline and no one should expect it to have the saftey record of one. I sure as hell don't.
Fix Hubble, then get us back on the moon (just for the hell of it) before I die. OK NASA.
Re:It would be nice. (Score:2)
1) Passenager miles, NASA is right up there with the Airlines.
2) Total miles travel, NASA should be even safer.
3) Number of trips...
NASA should stick to walking.
Re:It would be nice. (Score:2)
Re:It would be nice. (Score:2)
I believe the money would be better spent (Score:3, Funny)
Robots in space? (Score:2, Funny)
To Infinity -- And Beyond! (Score:5, Funny)
Reducing costs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reducing costs? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess it is partly about maintaing the avilability of a spacebased telescope until the new, cheaper, better and maintanencefree telecope is designed, built and launced.
To not fix something simply because we at some point in the future will have somethign better is like not fixing that harddisk in your PC when it keels over because in the near future we will have access to holographics storage with no moving parts... well, maybe not the best analogy, but you get the idea.
Re:Reducing costs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reducing costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't. When Hubble was designed, NASA were claiming that the shuttle would fly fifty times a year and launch payloads for $250 a pound, so repair made sense. Now that it actually flies four or five times a year and payload costs $25,000 a pound, it doesn't make much sense... launching new Hubbles every few years on expendable boosters would probably have been a lot cheaper.
Robotics are the best option in any case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Robotics are the best option in any case (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it's because they realise that the public at large is apathetic about robots, but gets excited when a human does things...
There wasn't all that much excitement when the
NASA probes landed on mars, they're now all byt gone from the news. If humans went, it would be close to front page stuff most days they were away from earth.
They need projects which capture human imagination and make the tax
Re:Robotics are the best option in any case (Score:2)
Heck, they could tape it all and have an hour a night on what the Astronauts were doing on Mars. It would be the ultimate reality TV show!
Manned space flight does make sense. Blowing things up with million dollar bombs and then paying to have them rebuilt again doesn't make any sense. One gets you somewhere, and one doesn't.
Re:Robotics are the best option in any case (Score:2)
For an agency that is supposed to be about exploration and research, they're not very good at doing their homework. Raise your hand if you cared about last weeks launch of new astronauts to the ISS? I saw the article, but didn't bother to read it. Now how many people followed the landings of the two mars rovers and the articles about the problems they overcame?
People get excited
It certainly doesn't make sense for NASA (Score:2)
NASA has made an art of frittering billions.
Begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Begs the question (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if you have one flexbile system you understand well, is this not better than two system
This is sad. (Score:5, Interesting)
How are we supposed to send humans to the Moon and Mars if we are afraid to send them into Low Earth Orbit?
There is evidence that it is actually safer [marssociety.org] to send astronauts to the Hubble than it is to send them to the International Space Station.
I am sure a robot could do the job, but where does it leave humans in the long run if we don't take risks ourselves. Will we leave exploration of the universe to the Von Neumann Machines [wikipedia.org] and maroon ourselves on Earth?
Re:This is sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I have to be nit-picky:
That doesn't matter when the issue you're having is surviving takeoff or landing.
Re:This is sad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it matter whether the universe is settled by biological von Neumann machines like us, or by mechanical von Neumann machines like our robots, as long as it actually does get settled by somebody? I for one wish our von Neumann successors the very best of luck in their explorations.
Re:This is sad. (Score:2)
No, no, no, it's "I for one welcome our..."
Aw, nevermind.
Re:This is sad. (Score:2)
Your great-great-great-great-grandson might someday visit Alpha Centauri. Great. Or, alternatively, the great-great-great-grandson of the robot I program today might someday visit Alpha Centauri. Now, why does the idea of your DNA-based descendant visiting Alpha Centauri give you such a warm feeling, while the idea o
Space Station Telescope (Score:2)
Re:Space Station Telescope (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not hopeless (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy, improve the developement of robots and launch vehicles, and allow private space launches.
People are willing to take risks for themselves and with their money, but politians in democratic societies are very risk-averse. Killing astronauts has much worse political ramifications than allowing the Hubble to possibly become junk. Bad things, that photograph well and happen to real people, put poli
Consequences. (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, if we have built robots that can do anything in space that humans can, what is the point of ISS? Why have a human who requires air, food, sleep, sanitary facilties if Robonaut can do the same thing.
Secondly, are there consequences for the James Webb telescope? This is going to lurk out at L2 and is currently going to be inaccessible for repair or, more significantly, refuel. It is currently being designed with a finite life because of a finite supply of coolant for the IR sensor. Surely the same technology that can repair Hubble can refuel Webb. And Webb is probably being designed with fastenings suitable only for earthside maintainance. Perhaps they should design fasteners to be undone in orbit, even if they don't have the technology to undo those fasteners now. By the time Webb starts running low, about 2016, they probably will have the technology. Wingnuts instead of welds - then Robbie can fix it.
Re:Consequences. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is very little point to ISS. It's a make-work project for NASA and the Russian space program. About the only thing we have learned from the ISS is that putting humans in LEO for extended periods is a waste of money at present launch costs.
He hasn't made many good decisions, but ending the US commitment to the ISS in 2010 beyond "core complete" is one of Shrub's correct ones. The money could be better spent going to Mars, on unmanned planetary probes, on untold research projects (fusion, a big atom smasher, nanotube research...). Heck, deficit reduction would probably be a more useful thing to do with the money, cause, boy, you guys need it.
Re:Consequences. (Score:2)
More on the offtopic side, the other thing I was wondering about is
Re:Consequences. (Score:2, Informative)
robotic exploration, automated (Score:5, Interesting)
The plan was to construct a simple network of small mining robots that ran on tracks that they themselves laid down. Minerals mined would initially go to the construction of more tracks, track-riding robots, micro-smelters, and power sources (solar or otherwise). In this way, you could construct a self-sufficient mining operation with minimal initial investment that would grow at an almost exponential rate, given sufficient local resources. Land on an asteroid, send minerals and metals out of it a year or two later - avoid the gravity well entirely.
At the time, though, it was just an idea and we didn't have the tech to pull it off. You need some relatively sophisticated AI decision techniques to deal with the nitty-gritty details of such an operation, as we're finding from even such comparatively simple things as the mars rovers today, and it's hard to reproduce the robot-critters on the spot. It's for reasons like the first, though, that I originally got interested in CS and majored in it, and I think we're getting close. Depending on this Hubble work and similar projects, robotics may have finally caught up too.
Instead of worrying about how to get the materials into orbit to build in space, we should start using what's already there. Here's to hoping.
Re:robotic exploration, automated (Score:2)
Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:4, Insightful)
At any rate if the only danger is that the heat proof tiles get damaged then why on earth don't they just pack enough supplies to let them hang around in orbit long enough to be rescued?
It just seems really stupid to waste the shuttles just because they're so image conscious that they have to avoid losing astronaughts at all cost, I mean they may as well not go anywhere near space if that's going to be their attitude
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actualy, the accident rate on the Shuttle isn't too bad, considering. However, the CAIB inquiry was by far the most in-depth study of the Shuttle, even including the Challenger inquiry. And it revealed lots and lots of potential failure situations that could lead to loss of craft and crew. Once those potential failure scenarios are known about the past safety record doesn't matter. They could happen - that they haven't up until now is luck.
At any rate if the only danger is that the heat proof tiles get damaged then why on earth don't they just pack enough supplies to let them hang around in orbit long enough to be rescued?
It's not the only danger. Firstly it's not just the tiles - there are a lot more components to the thermal protection system on the Shuttle. The component damaged on Columbia was one of the reinforced carbon-carbon wing leading edge panels. Secondly, longevity on orbit is a tradeoff between payload capacity and supplies. You take more supplies, you take less payload. Plus there are some systems that will degrade or run out on orbit and can't be replenished in orbit - thruster fuel is one, if I recall rightly. And thirdly, there's always the possibility that damage to the thermal system might be combined with another fault. Some of the Shuttle's abort modes (like TAL (Transoceanic Abort Landing) and AOA (Abort Once Around)) are required for things like life support problems, and have almost the same heating as a normal reentry. In those situations they can't wait on orbit.
Plus, of course, what happens if they do have to be rescued? It takes a long time to prep a shuttle. In the case of Columbia Atlantis was being prepped and perhaps could have been prepped for a rescue mission in time - but it would have required triple shifts and no problems turning up, plus the assumption that the same thing wouldn't happen on launch. Plus you can't really keep a Shuttle on the pad "ready to go" - again, systems degrade.
It just seems really stupid to waste the shuttles just because they're so image conscious that they have to avoid losing astronaughts at all cost, I mean they may as well not go anywhere near space if that's going to be their attitude
It's all tradeoffs. Nasa's attitude doesn't really matter in this circumstance; it's what the American people - and, let's face it, mainly Congress et al - think that counts, and Nasa are desperate not to have another disaster. Nasa like manned spaceflight, and want to do more of it - they want to get the funding and be allowed to do it, not forced into doing only robotic exploration for the next 50 years,
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:5, Insightful)
If two out of five 747s exploded, would you call that a bad accident rate? Even considering?
How many Soyuz have we lost in the past thirty years?
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:4, Informative)
If two out of five 747s exploded, would you call that a bad accident rate? Even considering?
747 is a bad example. The Comet is a better example. The high losses of Comets was down to one factor; no one knew any better. First versions of anything have high losses.
Considering that the Shuttle was so fundamentally different from ever other spacecraft before it, and how few of those there were, losing two craft in over a hundred flights isn't that bad. The only reason why there were no losses in other US manned craft was down to low flight numbers, and Apollo (somwhere near 15 manned flights including Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz, IIRC - someone will correct me) came close on a couple of occasions.
How many Soyuz have we lost in the past thirty years?
About the same as shuttles, IIRC - two. Over less flights. (Soyuz isn't up to 100 yet, unless I'm misremembering). I think there have been some unmanned losses, and Proton failures (which would have lead to a Soyuz loss if it had been a Soyuz mission) - again, someone else will likely know the exact figures.
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:2)
nitpick:
Soyuz flies on its own rocket (also called Soyuz). Proton lifts 3 or 5 times more than the Soyuz and is not man-rated.
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:2)
Considering that each vehicle has flown multiple missions, counting the total lost give you an extremely misleading impression. Given the nature of the failures we would have lost two shuttles whether we had 4 or 14 of them.
Here's where the figures get interesting...
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:2)
I stand by my statement your honor - that there have been none in the last thirty years. (I Am Not A Lawyer But I'm Not Above Getting Out Of Logical Arguments Using Technicalities.)
My point was there have been early crashes (one parachute failure and one reentry depressurisation) but occurred in early models - which have now been completely redesigned. A complete redesign is cheaper to implement when you use disposable spacecraft, whereas reusable space
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:2)
But to be honest, I do not think it is feasiable to fly the shuttle for crew missions. Far better to move us to an automated system or simply scraping it and doing a new large payload system (200 tonnes or better). As it is, the russians and many other countries have developed moderate costing launches.
In addition, once the x-prize is won, we coul
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:2, Interesting)
If NASA was actually useful, the government wouldn't have to steal money from hardworking taxpayers to fund it. I for one, for example, would happily donate a couple of hundred bucks a year to keep the unmanned side of NASA going, but wouldn't donate anything towards the shuttle or ISS: I want to go into space myself one day, and the manned spaceflight side of NASA is one of the main obstacles _preventing_ the development of cheap privat
Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Invading Iraq is not useful in any sense, except, perhaps, to create more terrorists so that the government can justify more control and higher taxes.
Equally, tax-funded manned spaceflight is not useful... and the switch from manned maintenance flights for Hubble to umanned is a clear example of that. It's pretty funny to read above that NASA ar
Why would the robots be automated ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Robotic repairs of ISS (Score:3, Informative)
Robotics repairs of ISS is already in the plans, in order to minimize crew EVA time. The SSRMS (Space Station Remote Manipulator System aka Canadarm2) is scheduled to receive a "hand", the SPDM (Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator). SPDM is designed to be able to carry replacement parts to most external locations of ISS and swap them in place of a defective part. The robotic system is controlled remotely by the crew from inside ISS. The ETA for the launch of SPDM was 2005. That might have changed now that the shuttles are grounded.
For more info on SPDM from the Canadian Space Agency: Dextre (Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator) [space.gc.ca]
Hubble Future (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, in at least 10 years... (Score:2)
In short: a bad idea.
I hope many ideas like this will inspire people to save the Hubble after all.
Re:Hubble Future (Score:5, Insightful)
One key difference between the two telescopes is that the new one will have better instruments for seeing infrared light, which has a longer wavelength and is seen at the far reaches of the universe. Meanwhile, Hubble is better at detecting the shorter wavelengths of light that can be seen with the human eye. Because of these differences between the two telescopes, the NASA panel recommended that the two telescopes' operations overlap so scientists can study both types of images from certain objects.
The Robonaut (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a robot engineer, but this look like state-of-the-art to me...
Much less costly. (Score:2)
SSL (Score:5, Informative)
I will be proven right (Score:2)
Well, thanks to the magic of the interweb, I can preserve my prophecy for future reference!
Thus:
THIS WILL NEVER WORK.
Leave the bot on-station (Score:4, Insightful)
Siegfried & Roy (Score:2)
I've met Robonaut (Score:2)
While Robonaut is Really Cool, it's not quite as cool as the article implies. It has extremely li
Email I got from savethehubble.org (Score:2)
Mixed-up on your optimization (Score:2)
Why on earth would you want to maximize assembly time? ;)
This could be highly optimal (Score:2)
The only problem I forsee is that of supplies. Fuel, equipment, parts, that sort of thing. I mean, if you stage everything at another substation out in orbit, that's great,
Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
Although not 100% necessary, it sure is convenient to have an excuse to have a large chunk of your military force in the region with a large chuink of the world's oil supplies. That and we just have to prove we're the biggest, baddest SOB's on the block.
Re:Addendum (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA has more than one supplier and they periodically re-bid the work -- how much more "free market" do you want? Do you think Boeing and Lockheed and the rest wouldn't fall all over themselves to build you a space station of your own if you wanted one and could pay for it?
Re:Addendum (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and I do look down on Lockheed, but not for the reasons you
Re:They've done plenty (Score:2)
I thought NATO was a military alliance, not a trade agreement.
Re:2 ideas (Score:3, Informative)
2) HST is only useful as long as the instruments on board are top of the line. The current ones are degrading and will continue to do so. This is why new instruments are constantly being installed in HST. This allows HST to use latest technology as it becomes available and allows people to look at different things using HST as time goes on (just like any observatory may I add)
3) Moving HST