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."

5 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Re:My question by hfis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. It would be nice. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  3. Robotics are the best option in any case by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:My question by keez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Consequences. by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.