Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Robotics Science

Space Robot Maker MDA Nets Hubble Repair Contract 36

Posted by michael from the send-in-the-robots dept.
hyperlinx writes "MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. said on Wednesday it has signed a $154 million deal to help NASA's controversial repair mission to fix the aging Hubble Space Telescope. The Canadian firm that built the Canadarm robotic arm technology used on NASA's space shuttles won the contract 'to provide a potential information and robotic servicing solution' in a rescue project being eyed for 2007."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Robot Maker MDA Nets Hubble Repair Contract More

Space Robot Maker MDA Nets Hubble Repair Contract

Comments Filter:

  • Size (Score:2)

    by Fr05t ( 69968 )
    How many metres long with this be eh?

  • Define "repair"? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by helioquake ( 841463 )
    What exactly does this robotic mission promise to accomplish?

    I don't mean to be negative (if they can, great!), but it is not exactly an easy job to unscrew bolts and fastners by hand, even on ground!

    I forgot what is built in as a modular unit without many mechanical parts to support. Solar panel and batteries may be replaceable with care. But can someone tell me if a gryoscope can be replaced without using Philip screwdriver? I know that some science instruments are fastened with bolts. I'm not holding m
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Replace batterys, gyros, a few computer modules, Wide Field Camera, COSTAR and a few other things. It's a huge mission.

      Pretty much all the operations have been demonstrated with a robot on the ground by MDA which is why they were awarded the contract, so yeah, its possible.

  • Why not a manned mission? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kinema ( 630983 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @02:08PM (#11278905)
    Now that new fuel tanks for the shuttle have been completed [slashdot.org] why not a manned mission? Will the satellite fail before the next launch scheduled for May or June?

    • Too dangerous (Score:4, Informative)

      by benhocking ( 724439 ) <benjaminhocking&yahoo,com> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:38PM (#11280241) Homepage Journal
      You might think it is worth the danger (I do), but the current reason that the Hubble is off limits for the space shuttle (even after it finally gets the green light again) is that the orbit of Hubble is such that if something goes wrong similar to what happened to the Columbia shuttle (and if it is detected) they would not be able to get to the ISS. The advantage of getting to the ISS is that there is an emergency escape vessel (a Soyuz) that they can use to get to Earth. I've tried finding a link on Google confirming my memory, but have failed to find one that spells this out explicitly, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

      • Re:Too dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Vellmont ( 569020 )
        Right, because we _just_ discovered this Space Shuttle thing was dangerous 2 years ago february. I've never bought that argument, and I don't buy it now. We've know the thing is dangerous since its creation. Since when did the human race (or at least the US) turn into a bunch of whiny little gits that don't want to take any risk of "people dying"? How many people have died for a far smaller payoff like climbing Mt. Everest? The astronauts are willing to do it, and the Shuttle itself probbably couldn't
        • "The real deal is the administrators are covering their collective asses. No one wants to go down in the media shitstorm if a Shuttle is lost repairing hubble. Another casualty of our reactive media-wacko society."
          There is another issue. We only have three shuttles left. It maybe they fear lossing the machine more than the men. They of course would never say that. Frankly I think we need to build a new shuttle. Set the target at the same performance as the current shuttle, the same payload. But use modern t
          • We only have three shuttles left.

            And possibly only enough parts for two. In one of the post Columbia reports I recall reading that they rotate some of the parts through because they don't have enough-- i.e. when one shuttle lands, they pull some parts and move them up to the next one that will launch.
        • The real deal is the administrators are covering their collective asses. No one wants to go down in the media shitstorm if a Shuttle is lost repairing hubble. Another casualty of our reactive media-wacko society.

          I think that last sentence says it rather succinctly. And as far as fixing it with a robot, or remote teleoperators, and I like the latter much better than pure robotics, when it comes to getting it done expediciously because the man can adjust the angle of the screwdriver by feel much better tha

          • when it comes to getting it done expediciously because the man can adjust the angle of the screwdriver by feel much better than the robotic stuff can, or can back up and get a slightly better grip on the nut when he feels the nut starting to round, I can't see any way but a manned mission.

            There is a tradeoff for telepresence but it may not be what you think. A spacesuited astronaut has a LOT less dexterity and tactile feedback than you think. That's why they have to spend so much time and money training

            • Telepresence, with sufficient feedback would probably be ok, but what about the comm delays? Like listening to yourself on the radio when they are useing a profanity button delay I'd think. If the tele also had good vision, it might help but I'd think there would be a tendency to move the tool about as far as you estimate it needs to move, then stop and wait for the feedback. 4 hours of that, and I'd be stark raving loonie. The instant feedback to my hands has allowed me to take camera lenses apart, rep

              • Fully agreed that the delay would take some getting used to. Four hours of it would be exhausting, but unlike in space, when you get to a breaking point, you can bring in the next shift and go home.

                It helps that Hubble was designed to be serviced in space with the minimal dexterity and tactile feedback. Most of the repairs considt of switching out fair sized modules rather than (impossible) fine manipulation.

                I imagine after a while, the brain would naturally compensate for the delayed response and proba

                • They had better be good at ducking in that case, cause I wouldn't have any patience at all for that kind of tom-foolery at that stage of the game. Whatever was tossed, if I caught it, would come back on a very flat trajectory since my fuse would be all used up by then. I used to have a pretty decent arm for that.

                  That said, if they do this thing by telepesence, I hope they broadcast it, I'd love to watch & see how guys that have trained for that for months actually do it.

                  Question is, if they don't ta

                  • Question is, if they don't take a shuttle up to take the robotics to it, what are they going to use? I'd assume the robotics would be expensive enough they wouldn't really want them to be dumped into the pacific, what doesn't burn up that is. OTOH, they'll do what they have to do. If that means its throwaway, well...

                    They might have to burn it up. Oddly, that might even make economic sense. It probably would be cheaper than the once planned shuttle flight would have been.

                    At the same time, if they did g

                    • The ion thruster is to go on the hubble, to give it the orbital boost it probably needs by the time they get around "tuit". I doubt if the robotics and the upper stage, which will probably outweigh the hubble, could get enough delta-vee out of ion thrust to make the ISS, thats a whole orbital plane redirection, not just an orbital boost. However, given enough chemical boost once clear of the hubble, its probably doable with its own weight of propellant. That much weight however, seems to put the required

                    • I doubt if the robotics and the upper stage, which will probably outweigh the hubble, could get enough delta-vee out of ion thrust to make the ISS

                      I'm not sure the Hubble 'rescue vehicle' would necessarily be that heavy compared to Hubble itself (which is large as satellites go) once it has expended it's xenon by boosting Hubble. If so, once dettached, it's effective acceleration would be more than doubled when flying to ISS.

                      Of course, it could still make good sense to leave the whole thing attached to

                    • I tend to agree with the leave it up there approach. The biggest problem is that the lubricants tend to go away in the vacuum of space, and the next time they need to use it, its frozen. So thats a problem that will require much more thought than a throwaway in the pacific would need.

                      OTOH, the giro's, steering reaction masses and such are sized to handle the weight of the hubble. I'd think adding an offcenter weight to that would make them have to rewrite all their aiming software to compensate, and wou
      • You're correct that they always keep an escape capsule at the station. It doesn't have the capacity for a shuttle full of people-- Soyuz only holds 3 people-- but being on board a station in one piece, with air and food and stuff is much better than being scattered across Texas. Russia seems to have quite a bit of capacity for Soyuz launches and could probably send more escape capsules on relatively short notice.

    • Now that new fuel tanks for the shuttle have been completed why not a manned mission? Will the satellite fail before the next launch scheduled for May or June?

      Simple - the robotic system is much cheaper and much safer.

      While the robotic system is only $150Mil, the entire mission cost will be over $1 Billion. However the intended repair mission is huge. If you send a shuttle up to do the repair as many suggest, there is so much to do that a manned mission would take longer than the shutle can stay in orbit.

  • Pusher robots or shover robots?

  • local article (Score:3, Informative)

    by mike.newton ( 67123 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:27PM (#11280099) Homepage
    Here's an article [canada.com] from the Vancouver Sun [vancouversun.com] with some additional details.
  • But that is not likely is it? It all depends on the final cost - if that is over $500 mil, its cheaper to build a new one..
    • The Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and launch. The James Webb Space Telescope has been budgeted at $800 million, but won't be serviceable. I was going to say you're numbers are a little off, but I actually agree. If it costs over $500 million, it's better to abandon it, although there will be no direct replacement for many years.
      • I would probably say even if less, its questionable. The hubble was brilliant as a late 70's design, but is well outmoded now - even the new cameras to be sent up are well behind current designs, and will be even more so by the time they are fitted. Hubble is wearing out in all areas - at some stage a critical failure will render it useless, whatever repairs are carried out.

        Modern space-telescope mirrors weigh much less than the Hubble's, the Hubble's orbit is less than satisfactory, and so on. It has bee
  • While I am fascinated by and love the Hubble, I've begun to agree with many out there. Given the size of NASA's budget, the amount they want to accomplish in the next ten years, and future systems currently under development, a manned mission seems like an unnecessary expense, especially with cost estimates on the order of $1 billion.

    The robotic mission will replace the old batteries and broken gyroscopes and provide a way to deorbit the telescope after it becomes unable to deorbit itself. It seems to me t
    • I don't know of any reason why the robot itself couldn't take over the functions of the Hubble's aiming systems

      For the very finest guiding and control HST uses a signal off the telescope rather than just star trackers and gyros/IRUs. There may not be a reasonable way to bolt a robot on the outside and couple it to that system.
  • Can't less than $154 millions hire people who would happily sign a responsability waiver for NASA, board the oh-now-so-deadly shuttle and go fix Hubble personally?

    Heck, a lot of people would do it for free, just for the ride!

    People PAY to participate in sports more dangerous than a current shuttle mission!

    When orbital space missions become as safe as a commercial flight, there will be the dangerous interplanetary missions. Being on the edge is dangerous, but someone has to do it, and some people love to
    • It costs a half billion dollars just to put the shuttle into space and bring it home, doing nothing else.

      For $154 million, they'd let you touch the orbiter on the launch pad while it's fueled.
    • Can't less than $154 millions hire people who would happily sign a responsability waiver for NASA, board the oh-now-so-deadly shuttle and go fix Hubble personally?

      It may hire some people to ride the thing, but, it wont come near filling it up with fuel and getting it out to the pad, never mind an actual launch. Prior to all the new safety rules, that cost 500 million a trip. All the new rules probably pushing that up to nearly a billion dollars per flight now.

  • MDA did not build the Canadarm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by breem42 ( 664497 ) <<ac.oohay> <ta> <24meerb>> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @09:18PM (#11283992)
    "The Canadian firm that built the Canadarm"

    Yes, MacDonald Dettwiler did buy Spar Aerospace, who built the "Canadarm", but the company otherwise has little to do with it. They are, however, involved in some of the robotics of the ISS (called "Canadarm 2"). [mdrobotics.ca]

    BTW -- few people other than Canadians (of which I am one) call it the "Canadarm".

    Tony in Vancouver

    • What the heck are you talking about??

      MacDonald Dettwiler (now MDA) is the parent company of the division called MDRobotics that built the Canadarm, Canadarm2, SPDM, and practically every other space robot arm out there.

      Just because the parent office of a multidivisional company was not involved doesn't mean you can say that MDA did not build the Canadarm. The fact that it was called Spar at the time the Canadarm was built is irrelevant.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware the new TTY code!

Close