Slashdot Mirror
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."
NASA has plenty of launch vehicles which are cheaper and simpler than the shuttle to get the robot into orbit
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)
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
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.
"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.
"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)
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.
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.
I am not a robot engineer, but this look like state-of-the-art to me...
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.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
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.
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.
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.