NASA - Robotic Repair Of Hubble 'Promising'

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."

Comments

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

FP!

My question

[Ckwop]

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.. 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

[hfis]

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.

Re:My question

[Stephen R Hall]

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?

Re:My question

[McBeer]

"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 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

[keez]

While $375 million is nothing to shake a stick at, it's worth noting that the Hubble 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

[Rick the Red]

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

[avidday]

NASA has plenty of launch vehicles which are cheaper and simpler than the shuttle to get the robot into orbit

Re:My question

[Rick the Red]

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

[WegianWarrior]

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

[Ckwop]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source software has always done it like this. "Release early, release often". Only difference is, Open Source doesn't pretend it to be the final version nor does it cost an arm and a leg with each new release ;-)

Re:My question

[kfg]

. . .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 will eventually happen to 99% of the commercial software market anyway. There are only so many "features" you can ladle on to a Word Processor or DBMS, but the makers of such are, more or less, obligated to milk the process for as long as they can.

OSS simply speeds up the process of making standard software packages ubiquitous and free as in dirt.

KFG

Re:My question

[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

[nacturation]

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?

Re:My question

[Surur]

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 :)

Re:My question

[0123456]

"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

[krymsin01]

Simple solution: Telepresence.

Re:My question

[Short Circuit]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

because it was not conceivable back in 1970's, when
the Hubble was designed at first.

And politics, of course. Shuttle was supposed to be launched a dozen of times per year and cheaper to use. A true American flagship carrier.

Sometimes things just don't go the way the management had hoped for.

-b

Re:My question

[Anonymous Coward]

The real answer here is that this was never a problem with NASA. This was a decision made from the top (Bush and O'Keefe) and then forced to be justified. Fortunately, most technical members of NASA are very opposed to stupidity. Losing a working system that does not cost much (comparitively speaking) is a horrible waste of taxpayer money and very short sighted.

Re:My question

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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

[CreatureComfort]

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

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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. 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 have much in the way of thrusters. So, if lack of fuel and engine power constitutes a reason, there you have it.

Re:My question

[w3weasel]

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!

Re:My question

[bleckywelcky]

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 in various engineering fields. In civil engineering it is standard practice to allow a safety factor of at least 4, perhaps as high as at least 7 depending on who you are working with. In aerospace, you are LUCKY if you get a safety factor any higher than 2. This means that much more analysis must be done, and the design process must be carried out much more carefully ... people are willing to give a little slack on the deadlines IF you can show that you need the time to properly complete the job. If you have a safety factor of 7, management doesn't care if they the engineers for an early product, because they believe the safety factor may only drop to 6 or 5.

Re:My question

[tassii]

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.

Re:My question

[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.

Re:My question

[Cutriss]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The dimensions of the cargo bay on the shuttle were more or less dictated by the hubble.
No, the dimensions of the cargo bay were dictated by military satelite sizes. Those A bombs and lasers were supposed to be huge, you know. Fortunately, they didn't launch any A bombs later, or did they?...

Re:My question

[SEWilco]

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?

Do you want your expensive telescope near the same orbit as a tin can leaking parts, flakes, and water of various flavors?

Re:My question

[Anonymous Coward]

That "pesky flaking foam insulation thing" was because environmentalists required the foam be changed. As if a handful of launches a year could affect anything on a planetary scale.

Re:My question

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose lives are you willing to risk in a Shuttle flight to Hubble? Look through the NASA lists of astronauts and give us a list of names.

Re:My question

[SEWilco]

Fortunately, they didn't launch any A bombs later, or did they?...

Of course not.
H bombs.
And the later models, the I bombs.
The F bombs are ground based, and the FCC is trying to keep them from being air borne.

Re:My question

[Anonymous Coward]

> Simple solution: Telepresence.

An excellent solution, certainly - if you can do it well enough over a radio link to an orbiting robot; not a simple solution though.

Re:My question

[falcon5768]

too late, Im sure the shuttle as well as the erlier space missions dropped the f-bomb more than once.

Maybe they will go back and fine them anyway like they did with Stern

Re:My question

[DerekLyons]

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 teleoperation systems are nowhere near as agile and versatile as a human being on site.

The cost launching the space shuttle is around 375 million dollars.. Probably more for a space walk.

Well, the site you link to gives the average cost (annual cost/# of flights) as 375 million dollars. The actual cost is somewhere much closer to 100 million dollars or less. The more you fly, the cheaper the missions get (within limits) because the currently dominant overhead costs get amortized across more flights.

I don't accept that you can't design a repair bot for under that launch cost?

And what exactly is your background and expertise that allows you to state that?

Anyhow, it's quite likely you *can* develop, design, build, test, and qualify a robot at least a little cheaper than that. (Assuming that no pitfalls appear, which is not a safe assumption generally in projects this complex.) The problem comes that when you add in launch costs and operational costs, you don't end up being much cheaper than a Shuttle launch. NASA is going to have to choose between an illusion of safety and a long shot robotic repair, or developing a simple deorbit/storage orbit system.

Other uses

[hfis]

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

[Avian visitor]

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

[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

[Serious Simon]

Sending robots to Mars? Isn't that exactly what they have been doing?

Re:Other uses

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

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 any more than that because the software to allow them to operate autonomously safely and effectively just isn't there, and without that AI everything is restricted by the ping times.

Re:Other uses

[Short Circuit]

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.

Re:Other uses

[WindBourne]

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

[Avian visitor]

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

Re:Other uses

[Iambic Pentametor]

This is off-topic, but this comment sparked an idea for Mars:

Why not have the first manned mission to Mars exclude a manned landing -- instead, drop a bunch of robots onto the surface that could be controlled remotely by humans in orbit. This way, you don't need to worry about all the problems with another launch. The robots could be used to construct habitat/mining/fabrication facilities.

After several missions (with more robo-payloads) a manned landing would have resources on-site.

The first problem I see with this is getting all the landings to the same location.

Damon

Re:Other uses

[SEWilco]

Ping time to Mars varies between 10-30 min.

You must have a faster link than mine.
I haven't yet gotten a reply to my pings to Mars.

Hubble

[endlessoul]

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...

Re:Hubble

[toesate]

Good one.. Maybe they are indeed mixing work and play, not a bad proposition huh?

I think Robonaut will be a very common occurence. At least, it has to be common enough, as a prerequisite to eventually send one to Mars and back to Earth.

Re:Hubble

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought of Huey, Dewy & Louie from the Valley Forge.....

It would be nice.

[Simple-Simmian]

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.

Re:It would be nice.

[jackb_guppy]

I think based on:

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.

[clintp]

Not to mention flight delays (of years sometimes), cancelations, and the occasional destination changes (landing at Florida instead of California).

Re:It would be nice.

[MindStalker]

Walking into orbit, now thats a trick that I'd love to learn.

I believe the money would be better spent

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[odano]

Robots in space? What's next, a computer that can beat a human in chess?

Re:Robots in space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, you are shortsighted!

Think of THE computer that remote control earthings from space.

42

To Infinity -- And Beyond!

[Rick the Red]

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?

[ambienceman]

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.

Re:Reducing costs?

[WegianWarrior]

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?

[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?

[0123456]

"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.

Re:Reducing costs?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Do you buy a new car each time there's a mechanical problem with it?

Depends how far away I parked it.

Re:Reducing costs?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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...

A shame that we weren't willing to finance the fleet of 20 or so shuttles required for that 50 launches a year.

Especially given that a shuttle a week would have meant that making reapirs to a damaged shuttle at ISS would have been a trivial exercise - you wouldn't have to wait more than a few days for the next scheduled flight. Hell, you could just leave the broken one in orbit and ride back on the next scheduled flight, and fix the damaged one at your leisure.

Shuttle was a good idea, but the idea was massacred by the budget people before it ever got past the design stage - four of them was never enough to make them worthwhile. They could only be worth having if dozens were flying.

Here's hoping the Chinese continue to push their own manned space program. Maybe if the Chinese send men to the moon, we'll wake up and get back on track toward Mars and beyond.

Ugh, italics were a typo

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse the italics; forgot to close the tag on the word "would". Comment reads easier (don't bother modding this) --

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.

Re:Ugh, italics were a typo

[kfg]

I'm shocked and stunned. You'd never catch me doing that.

KFG

Robotics are the best option in any case

[tsotha]

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.

Re:Robotics are the best option in any case

[moxruby]

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 taxpayer and therefore politicians care enough to keep the dollars rolling in.

Re:Robotics are the best option in any case

[Paulrothrock]

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.

Re:Robotics are the best option in any case

[llefler]

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 about new things, and if the shuttle had reached it's intended level of service, it would have been about as interesting as a bus schedule. Here's a new idea for you, put a robot on the moon with a camera and feed streaming video to a NASA website. For the first 6 months to a year it would generate enough interest to make the slashdot effect seem lame by comparison.

Re:Robotics are the best option in any case

[bug-eyed monster]

If humans went, it would be close to front page stuff most days they were away from earth.

I doubt this very much. The problem is the general public and the Western media have a short attention span. They will get on a frenzy at the beginning and then lose interest over time. Case in point: the space shuttles. The first few shuttle trips were followed with lots of fanfare and attention, then as they got into the routine, they were all but ignored. Shuttles went up anyway, with humans aboard, but unless they were doing something extraordinary like the first EVA to fix the Hubble, they barely made it to the evening news.

Humans or robots, the first trips to Mars will be closely followed for the first few days, then as they hit routine, the media will change their attention to the next sensation. You can only do so many spots for "today the astronauts got up, did complicated experiments that will take 2 months to analyze, went to bed."

Re:Robotics are the best option in any case

[benj_e]

NASA's made a science out of trying to prove manned spaceflight makes some kind of sense, and it just doesn't.

That's because that is what NASA is *supposed* to do. Part of their mission is to prove US superiority in technology. That's not a troll, that is a fact.

Does it make sense now? Maybe not, but one problem with things like the US Manned Program is that they take on a life of their own. Ending manned flight would have a negative PR effect, which would damage the reputation of the US wrt space.

btw, I don't think that the US is alone in this among the space powers. Once you start a program (like Brazil and its attempt to build its own launch facility) ending the program damages your reputation. And with the growing commercial space sector, reputation is important to get new investment

Simple

[Amata]

At the end of the day, seeing into outer space is not absolutely necessary for keeping the nation/world running in the state it currently is.

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:Simple

[thegrassyknowl]

My thoughts on the war were about the oil all along. But enough about the oil.

Sending a robot to fix hubble is great - hubble has its uses. And this is a great way to prove their robot technology. I am all for anything that advances space travel; I'd like to go there some day before I die, and I can't do that while it's limited to a small group of "elite" Americans. Everything to improve technology is a step toward my goal.

Addendum

[Anonymous Coward]

As an addendum, the free market can and DOES handle scientific advancement a magnitude better than NASA does.

Re:Addendum

[Rick the Red]

The free market needs a customer. NASA is that customer. NASA does diddly squat itself. They contracted out the design and construction of the shuttle and ISS; NASA just drives the truck and puts the tinker toy together on-site.

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

[HuckleCom]

I dont understand why many people think NASA is just as useless as can be. If it wasn't for NASA, and NASA-inspired ideals, half of the news, and other shows on your TV wouldn't exist. The pretty-damned powerful recon availability we have... from how many miles up in the sky? is because of NASA. Why don't we look down on Lockheed? I mean.. they DO build most of America's bombs. Do you think that Boeing and Lockheed are the only seldom individuals who invision jet aircraft? It was a NASA jet that broke speed record. I believe that people find it hard to accept that discovery of the galaxy is a real thing; as silly and outlandish as it feels typing this even, it's very much true, and to some as intriguing as is boring to others. NASA is workint to build a nuclear reactor for a mission to jupitor... you call that diddly squat - because they _MAY_ be working cooperatively with the US navy? The conception of design is just as valuable as the parts that put it together. So let's get off of our high-horses and think about it again.

Re:Addendum

[Rick the Red]

NASA does lots of things. Their charter is pretty far-reaching. But most people think of manned space flight when they think of NASA, and the vast majority of the manned space flight hardware was built by free-market contractors, not by NASA itself. Hell, NASA wouldn't get much support in Congress if they didn't spread the work around to companies in virtually every state. I think you missed my point and come close to putting words in my mouth.

Oh, and I do look down on Lockheed, but not for the reasons you suggest. I look down on them for bungling the quite excellent L-1011 and subsequently getting out of the commercial airline business.

Begs the question

[mcbevin]

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.

Re:Begs the question

[Agent Orange]

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 systems which are understood less well? I'm not sure, but I can certainly understand the NASA mentality, especially since everyone calls for blood when they have an accident.

Why indeed?

[divine_13]

Why send a machine to do a human's work? Or was it the other way around? ;)

This is sad.

[amitofu]

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 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 and maroon ourselves on Earth?

Re:This is sad.

[mrchaotica]

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.

[meringuoid]

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.

Re:This is sad.

[amitofu]

That doesn't matter when the issue you're having is surviving takeoff or landing.

Exactly. The launch inclination to the ISS takes the Shuttle over the north atlantic where an abort would drop the astronauts in freezing, arctic water. A launch to the Hubble, on the other hand, takes the Shuttle over warmer, equatorial waters where the chances of surviving an abort are better. There is also less micrometeor danger in the Hubble's orbit.

Re:This is sad.

[sshtome]

Uh, ok.

please can we blast you into space for a near certain death mission...

I'll be sending my remote controlled car.

See when your karma brings you back as an insect.

Re:This is sad.

[bug-eyed monster]

For many of us yes it does matter, a ton. I'd like to explore the universe myself for the same reason that I like to climb a mountain myself, instead of sending a robot up there. I don't want to go to an Imax theater and watch footage from some robot's explorations, I want to shoot the footage myself. Granted, it's not for everybody, but it's still for a lot of us.

Re:This is sad.

[RobertB-DC]

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.

Re:This is sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter whether the universe is settled by biological Alfred E. Neumann machines like us, or by mechanical Alfred E. Neumann machines like our robots, as long as it actually does get settled by somebody? I for one wish our Alfred E. Neumann successors the very best of luck in their explorations.

Re:This is sad.

[meringuoid]

Look at it this way: You personally will never, ever visit Alpha Centauri. It's just not going to happen. Neither will anyone you know, nor most likely will anything launched in your lifetime.

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 of my silicon-based descendant visiting Alpha Centauri doesn't?

Given that I personally will never live to see the day either way, I don't mind if our human or transhuman successors visit the stars, or if our robot successors visit the stars. They're just as much our children and our legacy to the universe either way.

Re:This is sad.

[bug-eyed monster]

Or: in any generation of humans, some will want to send someone else out while they stay home and watch the movie, while others will want to go out themselves. So in every generation, the latter group will design stuff dreaming of being the ones who will go out, or at least knowing that someone in the future will... Until in some generation, we'll really have the capability and some humans from that era will want to go out and colonize space themselves.

So we design things in a way that'll let humans go out and explore space, because we figure some of the humans in the future will want to do that. It may not be the most logical thing to do, but it's the emotionally good thing to do, just like climbing a mountain.

Ah, robots used to aid space exploration!

[OwlWhacker]

If the robot used to repair Hubble is anything like the ones used to poke around on Mars, does this mean that it will probably take it a month to tighten up a screw?

Re:Ah, robots used to aid space exploration!

[kfg]

Perhaps, but then you aren't paying it by the hour either.

Sometimes patience is the appropriate tool for the job.

KFG

Consequences.

[AlecC]

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.

[Goonie]

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.

Re:Consequences.

[snooo53]

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 the coolant issue for the IR sensor. Why couldn't they use some sort of thermocouple to caputure the heat for power like they used to do on spacecraft with those radioisotope power sources? It seems like this would also have the added benefit of reducing the amount of IR radiation that could interfere with the sensor! Maybe it's a lack of understanding about the engineering involved, but I'm not even sure why coolant is an issue... is this not a closed system? Are they going to be dumping coolant out into orbit with the telescope

Re:Consequences.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, deficit reduction would probably be a more useful thing to do with the money, cause, boy, you guys need it.

Sadly we did this already to pay for the largess of the Reagan admin. Poppa Bush paid a huge price for it and clinton was accused of ignoring infrastructure. It seems like these days the W. type republicans can only see their own pocketbook, rather than the long term pocketbook of all.

BTW, ISS is very cost feasable on Russian launches. It is when you use American launches that it gets costly.

Re:Consequences.

[AlecC]

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 helium. It already has solar cells to generate power - teh trouble is, solar cells bring heat as well as power.

Re:Consequences.

[Microlith]

Except that he's going to pull out, and none of the projects you mention will ever see any funding.

Shrub's decision not to waste money on the ISS may not be wrong, but nothing else he'll do with the money we save will be right.

Re:Consequences.

[CrimsonAvenger]

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

L2 is shaded by the earth? When did they move it?

Last I looked, L2 is the stable point beyond the moon, which should leave it in direct sunlight pretty much all the time. It may be eclipsed for rather less than an hour at a time a couple times a year, at most.

L2 is shaded FROM the earth, not BY the earth. An important distinction.

Re:Consequences.

[ZOmegaZ]

Well, the main reason we've gotten little scientific value from the ISS is the limited crew size. The reason for that is the limited escape vehicle capacity. They need a vehicle that hold half a dozen or more people. Um... don't we have three of those? If we're not gonna use the shuttles anyway, and will hopefully be replacing them, why don't we dock one at the ISS and use it as an escape vehicle?

Obligatory Matrix quote

[appelflapje]

Agent Smith: Never send a human to do a machine's job. Ofcourse I'm all for manned space exploration. I'm simply against stupid kostly pet projects that only cost money and lives.

Build a replacement module

[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.

robotic exploration, automated

[keez]

Seven years ago, I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics (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.

Re:robotic exploration, automated

[//rhi]

OK, so what do you do when it comes back, lands, decides "OK, it sure looks like there's lots of good iron here." and starts eating up downtown Detroit, London, Peking ...?

Re:robotic exploration, automated

[Noren]

Self-replicating robots for use in the mining of asteroids was initially proposed by von Neumann 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.

They've done plenty

[Anonymous Coward]

but quite frankly NASA is a violation of NATO and other trade agreements because it essentially subsidizes certain high tech companies. Subsidies are WRONG.

Re:They've done plenty

[meringuoid]

NASA is a violation of NATO and other trade agreements

I thought NATO was a military alliance, not a trade agreement.

Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[AC-x]

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?

[angusr]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that there are plenty of idiots like this guy.

Written by Anonymous Coward.
Do we really need this and other big government projects taking money away from hard working Americans? This is America, not the USSR, not China, and not Cuba. We value freedom above all else, and freedom is NOT the GOVERNMENT spending your money for you.

These people actually believe that NASA is a complete waste of time. The reason this is believed so widely (IMO) is because of the poor state of education here. But believe this, the two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[Anarchofascist]

...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?

[angusr]

...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.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[0123456]

"These people actually believe that NASA is a complete waste of time."

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 private spaceflight.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[MikeyToo]

Two actually.

Soyuz 1 in 1967 and Soyuz 11 in 1971.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[WindBourne]

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 could create a y-prize to develop a low cost system for sending us into leo.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, space exploration and research are public goods, suffering from the free-loading problem.

I mean, if invading Iraq or national defense in general were actually useful, the government wouldn't have to steal money from taxpayers, now, would it?

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[0123456]

"I mean, if invading Iraq or national defense in general were actually useful, the government wouldn't have to steal money from taxpayers, now, would it?"

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 are planning robotic maintenace for ISS, when human occupancy of space is supposed to be the whole justification for ISS now.

As to why my original post was labelled 'flamebait', I have no idea.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[Anarchofascist]

Two actually. Soyuz 1 in 1967 and Soyuz 11 in 1971.

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 spacecraft must be altered and retrofitted.

Don't get me wrong here, I love the shuttle. It's great to think we have the capability to put such a huge manned cargo-carrying spacecraft up there. But we need to be realistic about this. The shuttle is doing two jobs at once (heavy lift and manned flight) which could be done cheaper with unmanned heavy lift launchers and light, manned spacecraft like Soyuz.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[darkwhite]

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.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[DerekLyons]

...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
• Shuttle - 113
• 
  Note that Soyuz has actually flown less despite being in service longer.
  
  Total Lost
• Soyuz - 2
• Shuttle - 2
• 
  
  Launch Abort (loss of vehicle)
• Soyuz - 2
• Shuttle - 0
• 
  
  Launch Failures (loss of crew and vehicle)
• Soyuz - 0
• Shuttle - 2 (Both Challenger and Columbia were lost due to incidents in the launch phase, even though the piper was not paid for Columbia until re-entry.)
• 
  
  Mission aborts (total or partial loss of mission)
• Soyuz - 8 (Plus the two launch aborts above, none reflown)
• Shuttle - 2 (both reflown)
• 
  
  Reentry and recovery failures
• Soyuz - 4 (2 fatal, 2 non fatal)
• Shuttle - 0 (As noted above, Columbia is counted as a launch failure.)
• 
  
  Missed landing target
• Soyuz - 5
• Shuttle - 0

The Soyuz is everything many advocate in a Shuttle replacement, smaller, cheaper, simpler. Yet it's safety and reliability records over all are not noteably better than that of the Shuttle.

Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle?

[angusr]

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.

Quite correct, and I'm properly slapping myself on the head here. However, there have been Soyuz launch vehicle failures - for example, the Foton M1 satellite launch in February 2002, which exploded thirty seconds into flight and was the incident I was thinking of when I said Proton erroneously...

Why would the robots be automated ?

[master_p]

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.

Re:Why would the robots be automated ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you radio control the robots from the earth, you have a long time delay in your control feedback loop (1 to 2 seconds, I guess) due to the finite light speed. So instabilities and oscillations may ocurred. The solution is operating the robot very slowly (as the rovers in Mars).

Re:How is it?...

[kahei]

How much time and money does it take to train, equip, and transport (into space) an astronaut?

How much time and money does it take to train, equip and transport (to Iraq) a marine?

Thus, the USA can afford to lose way more marines than astronauts.

Assembly Time

[Nermal6693]

minimizing crew EVAs while maximizing assembly time

Wouldn't it make more sense to minimise assembly time so that it gets done faster?

Russian access a bonus

[Anarchofascist]

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.

And the little robots names are...

[GomezAdams]

Huey, Dewey, and Louie and you can teach them to play poker after the repairs are done. CLUE=Silent Running.

Robotic repairs of ISS

[JohnConnor]

"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)

Hubble Future

[Epistax]

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.

Re:Hubble Future

[StateOfTheUnion]

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.

Yes, in at least 10 years...

[thrill12]

...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.

In short: a bad idea.
I hope many ideas like this will inspire people to save the Hubble after all.

Re:NASA should be eliminated

[Anonymous Coward]

This is America... We value freedom above all else...

somebody, please mod pearent as Score:5, Funny, not as Score:1, Flamebait

The Robonaut

[FreeHeel]

Here 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...

Re:The Robonaut

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't ALL done by NASA... contractors worked on much of it. I used to work for the company that designed the hand (the most complicated portion) of the Robonaut.

Here's more information from them: Robonaut Hand

Re:The Robonaut

[bluyonder]

The site for the Ranger robot is here.

2 ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Send up a gyro "robot" that simply finds the hubble and grapples it or drills holes and mounts istelf to the side, thereby supplying gyros. Make it so that it has a replaceable uint, that can be sent up on another launch to replace any bad gyros.

2. Move the hubble to the ISS, put it on a long arm that will let it move around but is still attached to the ISS. Possibly use the above #1 idea to attach a rocket pack to get it to the ISS. Then servicing would be a lot easier.

Comments please...

Re:2 ideas

[Uncertain Bohr]

1) Just supplying gyros will not be enough. New batteries are required too. The current one will fail in 2 years or less
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 to the ISS is very problematic: (a) it takes a LOT of energy to move to an orbit which is in a different plane and it will take months to move HST to the ISS orbit using current technology. During that time, HST will be unusable and will deteriorate (b) the orbit of the ISS is too low for HST which was designed. Atmospheric drag would be a problem for it (c) the low ISS orbit, and the region around the ISS has more pollutants which would affect the instruments on board of HST.

Re:2 ideas

[Tablizer]

1. Send up a gyro "robot" that simply finds the hubble and grapples it or drills holes and mounts istelf to the side, thereby supplying gyros. Make it so that it has a replaceable uint, that can be sent up on another launch to replace any bad gyros.

Dude, your porn life is leaking into your tech work :-P

Space Station Telescope

[SmackCrackandPot]

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.

Re:Space Station Telescope

[Pxtl]

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.

Much less costly.

[miffo.swe]

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.

It certainly doesn't make sense for NASA

[Moderation abuser]

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.

Quick release?

[el_benito]

I dunno about you buddy, but in my life, quick releases only pleasure the provider, not the bedtime client ;)

Pres Bush

[mhoover]

Yes, but are they capable of searching for weapons of mass destruction in space and retrofitting hubble with one of these?
Because if they can't they are worthless to America. We must use all availible resources to fight the war on terror! HooHa!

Technical Info

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, robotics may have progressed, but check out this technical data here.

It's controller software is listed as DOS!

SSL

[cybercuzco]

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.

It's not hopeless

[johnjay]

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 politicians' jobs at risk. Lost opportunities are generally too nebulous to lose a job over. It's one of the problems of living in a democracy.

(oh, we need to improve the developement of robots and launch vehicles because space exploration is currently too expensive for private ventures)

I will be proven right

[automatic_jack]

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

[WoodstockJeff]

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...

Re:robotic exploration, automated (OS = Windows?)

[BrentRJones]

Will Microsoft have Windows for Robots (R) ready in time for this to happen before Bill Gates dies?

Or will B.G.'s post-life intelligence be the AI for the system?

Inquiring minds want to know. ..
--

NASA giving up

[Anonymous Coward]

The major premise that the Space Shuttle was built upon was how we could go into space and do all these wonderful things with it.

I seem to remember that being a big repair/utility truck was one of those premises.

Which leads me to wonder just exactly how much one could trust NASA in terms of defining a moon base or a mission to mars scenario?

ISS Fuse Problem

[jeephistorian]

Maybe they can use it when they need to change the fuse that they put on the outside of the ISS!

_______________

Special Training for Mars

[jeephistorian]

Time lag wouldn't be a problem, just train the operators by keeping them drunk!

sorry!

______________

These are not the droids you're looking for.

[GlassMaster]

An R2 unit is the obvious solution.

Siegfried & Roy

[HTH NE1]

It seems the Cadre's plans are proceeding apace. Bright Sky's ahead, Tova.

Finally a Use for the ISS?

[arjay-tea]

Is there finally a real use for the International Space Station, namely as a control platform for remote cybernetic 'robots'? A person could strap on a control mechanism allowing full freedom of movement of all limbs, without interference from gravitational force at the earths surface.

another Hi-Tech job lost...

[tstockma]

Sigh, another high-paying professional job bites the dust.

Wrap It To Go

[SEWilco]

One of the robots has in interesting concept.
It is designed to work within a space suit.

Why is that interesting?
Because one of the big problems with making equipment work in space is that the environment is so different. You can't just take an industrial robotic arm and bolt it to a remotely-controlled rocket. The oil and grease will evaporate into vacuum and freeze if it is in shadow. Cold shadows can make plastic rigid and fragile, while unfiltered UV breaks down the chemicals.

But by putting a robot inside a spacesuit, the robot is in an Earth environment.

So an industrial robot arm could be wrapped inside a custom spacesuit. It might not last for months, as it would require more heating and cooling than a space-rated arm, but I suspect the spacesuit could be created much more cheaply and quicker.

Humanoid robot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I'm not an expert in the field of robotics, but I noticed that "robonaut" seems to resemble the human form, complete with hands and fingers.

I was under the impression that this does not make for a great robot design. Instead you can have tools built right in, such as on the mars rovers.

But then again, they say it works in testing. Is an android design a good way to go?

Actually...

[ToSeek]

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

No, the dimensions of the shuttle cargo bay were dictated by the Department of Defense. The dimensions of the Hubble were then dictated by the size of the cargo bay.

I've met Robonaut

[Unknown Kadath]

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 limited autonomy...they're still teaching it to do things like tell the difference between a wrench and a screwdriver, since machine vision is not a trivial problem, though when I was there they had gotten it to the stage where it was capable of following commands like "Robonaut, get wrench."

It does much better when piloted by a human. The operator puts on a helmet and Power Glove-looking ensemble, and Robonaut will mimic the operator's actions. The operator has to move slowly, however, because Robonaut can't move all that quickly, and if there are too many intervening actions, the program will miss them and it will take the shortest distance between the start condition and end condition, even if there were intervening movements.

I saw it tie a knot in a rope, under operator guidance, and it was able to take a pen from a programmer's hand, hold it correctly (not clenched in a fist, but held between thumb and forefinger) and write with it.

It doesn't have legs. And the head looks like Boba Fett's helmet. When I asked, the explanation I got was that it's designed to look like a Roman Centurion's helmet, but when the designer told me that, he got a really shifty look on his face, so I know the truth.

Anyway...Robonaut linkage.

-Carolyn

Email I got from savethehubble.org

[FleaPlus]

Below is the text of an email I got from savethehubble.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 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 hope we'll be able to send up a robotic one.

April 24th is National Astronomy Day, and a good time to make waves on Hubble's behalf.

No logic can support the notion that while the Space Shuttle is safe enough for multiple flights to the Space Station over the next decade, it is not safe enough for even one flight to Hubble. It is disingenuous to announce bold plans for a risky manned flight to Mars while at the same time retreating from a flight to Hubble just a few hundred miles away. NASA's leadership should either defend the risk of the loss of life as justifiable given the overall benefits to mankind, or it should retreat from manned missions altogether. We can ill afford to spend another decade funding manned projects such as the Space Station and the trip to Mars, only to have them shelved when NASA realizes it has no appetite for the inherent risk. If the shuttle can not be made safe enough at any cost, then abandon it and the Space Station, and spend more resources developing a robotic solution to fix Hubble, and to launch future scientific missions. The impact of Hubble on society and the enlightening new discovery of water on Mars make it clear that for the foreseeable future there is much more to be gained, in terms of science and political capital, from robotic initiatives (Hubble is an optical robot after all) than from projects that require NASA to make the environment safe enough for a man. Let's get back to manned flights when either we as a people have decided to accept the inevitable loss of life, or at such time as we have designed a space ship that is capable of traveling at near the speed of light. Only then will the benefits outweigh the risks.

Mixed-up on your optimization

[shrikel]

minimizing crew EVAs while maximizing assembly time

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

This could be highly optimal

[dacarr]

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, but occasionally you need to send a part up there. Suppose you could send the shuttle or a Soyuz or something up and stock the yard. Hell, if the space plane project ever gets completed, just send it up, pop it out, re-enter - easy peasy. That, and is my idea really that feasible? I'm almost certain that once in a great while you'll have to bring the equipment down from orbit to give it a once over maintenance - or send someone up for the same purpose, thus cutting that cost in half. Remember, much of this stuff that I just came up with will spend the majority of its life in orbit, much like the sattelites littering our exosphere and higher.

If this is the first generation...

[Stitch_626]

Wouldn't it be cool if this would work and then further development of the robonaut could continue? We could have an entire army of these things to build a proper space station in orbit completely ready for people to move in.

Then the robots could be continue to be useful for routine maintenance/repairs around the space station without exposing humans to the dangers of space.

Re:If this is the first generation...

[RedWolves2]

Replace a few words there and you pretty much summed up my career as a Developer.

Wouldn't it be cool if this would work and then further development of the program could continue? We could have an entire army of these developers to build a proper application completely ready for users to install.

Then the developers could be continue to be useful for routine maintenance/repairs around the program without exposing users to the dangers of code.

Re: Shuttle as repairmen's truck

[tcgroat]

There are political angles to this. To justify the shuttle program, it had to support as many other missions as possible. Other missions were designed with the shuttle in mind, assuming far lower launch costs and more frequent shuttle missions than the shuttle fleet has delivered (as other commenters have pointed out). NASA deliberately steered new missions away from exendable (unmanned) boosters and deemphasized expendable booster programs. Why? Because manned space flight could get congressional support ($$$), but boring science robots don't! Space science never beats space politics; science programs must be allies to the politically powerful. Turning Tom Wolfe's phrase around, no Buck Rogers-no bucks!

The shuttle was a big, expensive, funded hammer, so other programs became its nails as a survival tactic. Hubble could gave been designed differently. But if it had, it likely would have been a budget victim and never flown.