Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

NASA - Robotic Repair Of Hubble 'Promising' 185

Posted by simoniker from the daleks-will-help dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA - Robotic Repair Of Hubble 'Promising' More

NASA - Robotic Repair Of Hubble 'Promising'

Comments Filter:

  • My question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:44AM (#9005199) Homepage

    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)

      by hfis ( 624045 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:49AM (#9005224)
      Cost probably wasn't their only constraint. Although the costs involved in developing such a system would be huge, an even tighter constraint would be time -- NASA (well, "the western world") seems to operate on the premise of "Sooner is better"; features may be minimised or cut completely in order to provide a quicker release date. This is fast becoming the trend in software engineering, with 'big players' such as Microsoft starting to cut features and release bug laden products in order to "please" their client with a quick release.

      • Build a replacement module (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Maybe they should go farther. Maybe the best solution the the Hubble problem is to build a robot that flies up, attaches itself to whatever is up the and does all the flying and manouvering for the system more or less indefinitely.

        Natural selection is working in space against astronauts and for robots.

      • Re:My question (Score:2, Interesting)

        by kfg ( 145172 )
        . . .bug laden products in order to "please" their client with a quick release.

        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
        • if you released a final version and left it at that you would soon reach market saturation and then go out of business
          UNLESS you design some great new EULA that would basically render the software a purpetual lease, where the software company could charge per workstation per year (or quarter)!!
          Now THAT is a great idea! If only someone would put it in practice!
      • This may be a hard hitting point in the software industry and other "simple" industries, but in the Aerospace industry, it is not as important as getting the job done right. Deadlines are pushed back all of the time in aerospace. And it isn't because some software engineer can't get his project turned in since he was eating too many cheetos at his desk. It is because of realistic concerns about development of the hardware, getting the correct analysis done, etc. Proof of this can be found in safety factors

      • Re:My question (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:41AM (#9007730) Homepage
        This is understandable, when you understand NASA politics and funding - In NASA, getting stuff done as soon as possible is ideal because if you take another four years, you could end up with an unfunded hunk of half-working metal instead.

        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)

      by Stephen R Hall ( 163541 )
      Surely there will still be the cost of a shuttle launch to deliver the robot to Hubble, and to provide a base to control the robot from?
      • Surely not. The whole point is to NOT send a shuttle, because from now on all shuttle missions must dock with the ISS for safety, and any shuttle mission to Hubble cannot dock with the ISS. If you're going to send a shuttle, why not just let an astronaut fix Hubble? Or did you think the robot is going to fly the shuttle?

        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)

          by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:02AM (#9005290) Journal

          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)

          • Er... the ISS orbit isn't geosynchronous, so should the orbit paths matter? Or is the Hubble required to be on a specific orbit for some reason?
            • No. It's not geosyncronous. Its skimming the top of the atmosphere, and requires regular nudges to keep it there. (Usually done by the Shuttle or Progress supply craft.) It is there because of limitations in performance of the space shuttle. The Soyuz capsules can go much higher, and did, for Mir.

              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)

            by Surur ( 694693 )
            Ironically this means that currently, while the shuttle is grounded, the ISS can still be manned, as apposed to being abandoned. Should we thank our russian overlords :)
          • A good decision, as it turned out. If it was in a minimum-energy orbit for the shuttle but out of reach of baikonur, there wouldn't be people up there right now.

        • 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)

        by avidday ( 671814 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:54AM (#9005260)
        NASA has plenty of launch vehicles which are cheaper and simpler than the shuttle to get the robot into orbit

    • Re:My question (Score:3, Funny)

      by McBeer ( 714119 )
      "I don't accept that you can't design a repair bot for under that launch cost?"

      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)

      by keez ( 199602 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:53AM (#9005247)
      While $375 million is nothing to shake a stick at, it's worth noting that the Hubble [wikipedia.org] was launched in April 1990 at a cost of $2 billion US. Robotics, communications, and short-term automated decision-making have progressed signficantly in the last 14 years to make this feasible.

      • Re:My question (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Rick the Red ( 307103 )
        It was short-term automated decision-making that let them fly the shuttle without fixing that pesky flaking foam insulation thing. Just like it was short-term automated decision-making that let them fly the shuttle in the cold on January 28, 1986. I don't think NASA's short-term automated decision-making has progressed much at all since April, 1990.

    • Re:My question (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As I remember it, on the first Hubble servicing mission the astronauts couldn't get Hubble's doors shut, following the correct procedures. Mission control kept trying new procedures until the astronaut at the door told them to just shut up and let him get the door shut. Using his eyes, sense of touch and brain he "eased" it shut.

      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:4, Informative)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @06:50AM (#9005582)
      "The cost launching the space shuttle is around 375 million dollars [psu.edu]"

      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)

      by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
      It wouldn't have made a different. Astronauts have already needed to make repairs that the Hubble wasn't designed for in the first place.

    • Re:My question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <{yoda} {at} {etoyoc.com}> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @08:50AM (#9005989) Homepage Journal
      They DID design the hubble to be repaired. By the space shuttle, no less.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The dimensions of the cargo bay on the shuttle were more or less dictated by the hubble.

        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:My question (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CreatureComfort ( 741652 ) * on Thursday April 29, 2004 @08:57AM (#9006040)

      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...

    • Probably because 10 years ago when the Hubble went up, robots where still these huge clunky things that were in auto plants, not the advanced models we have today.

    • The question is why didn't the design hubble to be repaired in this way in the first place?

      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)

    by hfis ( 624045 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:45AM (#9005205)
    Aside from being used to reduce costs by limiting the number of astronaut EVA's on the ISS, I wonder if these robots could be sent to the moon/mars? I am not exactly sure of their entire ability, but surely semi-intelligent robots could be built on their framework that could be subsequently used to build bases and buildings on celestial bodies? It would be much cheaper than sending a human crew to do it, that's for sure.

    • Re:Other uses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Avian visitor ( 257765 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:18AM (#9005338) Homepage
      I doubt that these android robots can even stand upright on the surface of any planet. If they were designed for operation in zero gravity their framework is probably to weak to support the full weight.

      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)

        by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
        too weak to support the full weight.

        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.
        • Inertia exerts stresses on different points of the structure than gravity does. Take for example the arm of the space shuttle. It can move huge loads in and out of the shuttle's cargo bay while it is in orbit , but it can't even lift itself when the shuttle is on the ground
      • Yes, but the actual machanics are relatively minor (in terms of cost and difficulty of how to design and build) vs. the intelligence and control of the robot. Once, the programs are better designed for semi autonomous control, then it makes it quite possible to develop a number of robots with designs more suited to the needs at hand.

    • Re:Other uses (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      surely semi-intelligent robots could be built

      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)

      by Serious Simon ( 701084 )
      Sending robots to Mars? Isn't that exactly what they have been doing?

      • More or less, and you'll note that the rovers they have sent are slow, clumbersome and completely unsuited for complex detailed work - they crawl over the surface at a rate that would shame an arthritic snail so that mission control can direct them, they can't do anything as complex as lift a rock up and look underneath it (or even manipulate any small object). They are cameras on wheels with a boom with some instrumentation on it - very large, very expensive, very fragile remote control cars. They can't be

  • Hubble (Score:3, Funny)

    by endlessoul ( 741131 ) <endlessoul.gmail@com> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:46AM (#9005212)
    The article goes on to discuss 'Robonaut' and 'Ranger robot', two machines which can approximate the capabilities of a space-suited astronaut.

    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)

    by Simple-Simmian ( 710342 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:49AM (#9005225) Journal
    It would be nice to have a robotic ( or any ) rescue and refit of Hubble but NASA management will ( I predict ) be against it.

    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.

  • I believe the money would be better spent (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:50AM (#9005230)
    on world peace and saving kittens. I mean, stars and stuff don't really do anything, who cares if we can see them or not.
  • Robots in space? What's next, a computer that can beat a human in chess?

  • To Infinity -- And Beyond! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rick the Red ( 307103 ) <Rick.The.Red@nOsPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:50AM (#9005235) Journal
    maximizing [ISS] assembly time and hopefully reducing costs
    How about if we stop sending rockets and shuttles to the ISS altogether? That would drive costs to zero and drive assembly time to infinity, exceeding both of your stated goals.

  • Reducing costs? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ambienceman ( 721763 )
    man, I love the advancements of NASA, but honestly, how does maintaining such an old telescope with expensive maintenance...reduce cost? Especially when cheaper alternatives might be more feasible...or when money is put into reasearching newer, cheaper technology.. Nostalgia shouldn't be an issue here.

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nostalgia isn't an issue. Something good is already in orbit, and it's cheaper to fix it than to send something completely new in orbit. Do you buy a new car each time there's a mechanical problem with it?

    • Re:Reducing costs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @06:52AM (#9005591)
      "how does maintaining such an old telescope with expensive maintenance...reduce cost?"

      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)

    by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:52AM (#9005242)
    Of course robotic repair makes sense. In fact, it's a better option than the shuttle in any case. There ins't a lot you can't get a robot to do to hubble for the $1.2B a shuttle flight would cost you. NASA's made a science out of trying to prove manned spaceflight makes some kind of sense, and it just doesn't.
    • NASA's made a science out of trying to prove manned spaceflight makes some kind of sense, and it just doesn't.

      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
      • 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.

        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.
      • Maybe it's because they realise that the public at large is apathetic about robots, but gets excited when a human does things...

        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
    • There are other countries who manage manned space flight for a tiny fraction of the cost of NASA's efforts.

      NASA has made an art of frittering billions.

  • Begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcbevin ( 450303 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @04:57AM (#9005269) Homepage
    This all begs the question - why wait until theres no alternative before coming up with the robot idea? If it saves money anyway, and reduces the need for the shuttle, surely they should have looking into this long ago as an alternative to humans on both hubble and the space station.
    • Because of the increase in complexity. NASA spends an enormous amount of it's time bending over backwards to make everything as completely "safe" as possible. Everything has to be hardened, triple-tested, redundant etc. Space systems cost a lot of money to develop and fully test. More things can go wrong and they're harder to fix when they do. The fewer systems you're trying to develop the better I would think.

      Also, if you have one flexbile system you understand well, is this not better than two system

  • This is sad. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amitofu ( 705703 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:05AM (#9005302) Homepage

    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)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:21AM (#9005348)
      Good point - many people forget that (all, not just space) exploration does (and should!) entail risks.

      Sorry, but I have to be nit-picky:
      There is evidence that it is actually safer to send astronauts to the Hubble than it is to send them to the International Space Station.
      That doesn't matter when the issue you're having is surviving takeoff or landing.

    • Re:This is sad. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:35AM (#9005384)
      Will we leave exploration of the universe to the Von Neumann Machines and maroon ourselves on Earth?

      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.

      • I for one wish our von Neumann successors the very best of luck in their explorations.

        No, no, no, it's "I for one welcome our..."

        Aw, nevermind.
    • I've always wondered why no-one has built a space station around a telecope/the Hubble telescope There would be justification for keeping the space station manned, and you'd have on-site technical support for the telescope.
      • Simple. The telescope needs to be isolated for it to work well. Optics of that sensitivity do not react well to nearby vibrations, nearby heat sources, nearby light sources, and nearby energy expenditures. The hubble is currently located in the world's biggest clean room.

    • It's not hopeless (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johnjay ( 230559 )
      How are we supposed to send humans to the Moon and Mars if we are afraid to send them into Low Earth Orbit?

      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)

    by AlecC ( 512609 ) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:20AM (#9005345)
    Assume this works. At least two further questions then need to be asked.

    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)

      by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <robert.merkel@b[ ... g ['ena' in gap]> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @06:01AM (#9005458) Homepage
      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.

      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.

    • Your comment about the James Webb telescope got me thinking. Once that thing goes up whether they decide go with the robot repair or manned repair, it's going to be a boon for space exploration. Either way there is going to be some incredible engineering involved for repair missions... both for the robots that will service it, or for the support systems that will be needed to when they send a human out there. Hopefully both with happen.

      More on the offtopic side, the other thing I was wondering about is

      • Re:Consequences. (Score:2, Informative)

        by AlecC ( 512609 )
        The problem is how cold the cold end has to be. I think it has to operate at 50K. To cool it electrically, you need to pump heat out of it and dump it somewhere. Easy to do on earty, but in space with a vacuum, it is actually quite hard to get rid of the heat. The telescope is to be situated at L2 because that is well shaded by the earth, and already has a sunshade to keep the telecope body reasonably cool. I think it is just to diffivult to pump the heat out, compared to having a large bucke of liquid heli

  • robotic exploration, automated (Score:5, Interesting)

    by keez ( 199602 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:42AM (#9005407)
    Seven years ago, I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics [popularmechanics.com] (the article's long gone, unfortunately) about an idea for a completely autonomous robotic system to explore and develop space.

    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.

    • Self-replicating robots for use in the mining of asteroids was initially proposed by von Neumann [wikipedia.org] more than 50 years ago. These days self-replicating robots (now also known as von Neumann machines) are more commonly proposed for nanotech, but asteroid mining using normal-scale robots was the first application for which they were suggested.

  • Whats wrong with the shuttle? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AC-x ( 735297 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @05:51AM (#9005430)
    I just don't get this whole shuttle thing Nasa are going on about at the moment. It's been flying for decades with respectably few accidents, but now its suddenly too dangerous to go anywhere other then ISS.

    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)

      by angusr ( 718699 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @06:32AM (#9005520)
      I just don't get this whole shuttle thing Nasa are going on about at the moment. It's been flying for decades with respectably few accidents, but now its suddenly too dangerous to go anywhere other then ISS.

      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)

        by Anarchofascist ( 4820 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @07:02AM (#9005619) Homepage Journal
        ...the accident rate on the Shuttle isn't too bad, considering.
        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)

          by angusr ( 718699 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @07:31AM (#9005699)
          ...the accident rate on the Shuttle isn't too bad, considering.

          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.

          • Proton failures (which would have lead to a Soyuz loss if it had been a Soyuz mission)

            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.

        • ...the accident rate on the Shuttle isn't too bad, considering.


          If two out of five 747s exploded, would you call that a bad accident rate? Even considering?

          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.

          How many Soyuz have we lost in the past thirty years?

          Here's where the figures get interesting...

          • Total Missions
          • Soyuz - 87
          • Sh
      • I doubt that it would be worth the costs, but I wonder about retro-fitting wiht the X-33's heat system. The X-33 had a new design that made it cheap and durable.

        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

  • Why would the robots be automated ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by master_p ( 608214 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @06:02AM (#9005460)
    What's wrong with manually controlled repair machines ? they would not have to automate anything, it would be dead cheap and it could be launched now.

  • Robotic repairs of ISS (Score:3, Informative)

    by JohnConnor ( 587121 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @07:03AM (#9005620) Homepage
    "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."

    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)

    by Epistax ( 544591 )
    I remember reading that the reason they wanted to stop service on the Hubble was that they were going to replace it with a much better telescope (which one would assume would be cheaper and better). This being the case I don't see what the fuss is about them not wanting to mess with the hubble anymore. It's obsolete. At least let them keep it in orbit for a few decades while until it becomes feasible to bring it back to Earth. That'd be costly enough but to keep it operational is extreme.
    • ...not 'right away'. And as I commented on an earlier news article on Hubble's dismissal, it is like throwing a good pair of shoes away before you have a new pair. [slashdot.org]

      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)

      by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @08:51AM (#9006003) Homepage
      Hubble is far from obsolete . . . even if the James Webb Telescope was launched today, Hubble can do things James Webb can't and vice versa. One is not a drop in replacement for the other. Hubble's optics and sensors are optimized for shorter wavelength light than the James Webb telescope, so the two are looking at different part of the spectrum. The News Hour has an article here

      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)

    by FreeHeel ( 620639 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @07:36AM (#9005713)
    Here [nasa.gov] is more information and pictures about the NASA/DARPA Robonaut, a cool humanoid robot proposed to repair Hubble.

    I am not a robot engineer, but this look like state-of-the-art to me...

  • I think they are beginning to think with their brains for once. A robot doesnt need the same amount of life support system that humans do. you could send the robot up with the russian rockets instead of with the Shuttle/firecracker. Maybe even pick up the US rocket program wich was also better than the shuttle. The cost of the launch itself will then be reduced significantly. Then again maybe its a goal in itself to have humans up there. Much better PR but damn what an expensive PR campaign.

  • SSL (Score:5, Informative)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @09:17AM (#9006196) Homepage Journal
    I worked at the Univrsity of maryland's Space Systems Lab, where the Ranger Robot has been developed. They basically have been working on this robot for the last 13 years, and they have a working prototype in the lab. The prototype is designed to work underwater, since the SSL has a Neutral Bouancy facility, so the difference between the prototype and the actual ranger is that it has no rocket thrusters, only fans. But other than that, the robot is fully functional, and very capable. Back when I workedthere I helped design a test where it would put together parts of the James Webb Space telescope, and it worked perfectly. If any robot is qualified to fix hubble, ranger is.
  • Don't you hate how, when things like this are published, and you make some prediction about it and turn out to be right, no one believes you?

    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)

    by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @09:38AM (#9006377) Homepage
    Build a bot FOR the Hubble, maybe even with its own solar charging station. After that, you just launch the repair parts needed at any particular time in a supply rocket...
  • It seems the Cadre's plans are proceeding apace. Bright Sky's ahead, Tova.
  • No, really. While I was interning at JSC, we got a tour of the robotics lab and got to see Robonaut in action. There's a picture floating around out there somewhere where I'm shaking Robonaut's hand. My eyes are closed and I have a really goofy look on my face. Robonaut is bigger than a person, though not by a lot, and has extra degrees of freedom. It can do things like swivel its wrists in a full circle.

    While Robonaut is Really Cool, it's not quite as cool as the article implies. It has extremely li
  • Below is the text of an email I got from savethehubble.org [savethehubb.org]. I agree with it completely. While I'm in general a big fan of robotic technologies and exploration, it really frustrates me that we've become a country full of risk-averse [chron.com] cowards, unwilling to further our knowledge if it involves even a chance of sacrifice. Never mind the fact that those who would actually be risking their lives are completely willing to take that chance. In any case, if politics keeps us from sending up a manned repair mission, I
  • minimizing crew EVAs while maximizing assembly time

    Why on earth would you want to maximize assembly time? ;)

  • I like this as a concept. Hell, send a whole armada of these repair bots, and just use something on the lines of VR to repair things. I mean, all this tech from scifi movies might just be something feasible for the purpose, for a fraction of the cost - and the running theory I have is that you only have to send up the fleet once.

    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,

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close