Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA - Robotic Repair Of Hubble 'Promising'

Posted by simoniker on from the daleks-will-help dept.

mykepredko writes "According to CNN, using a robot to repair/update the Hubble observatory is much more feasible than NASA originally believed. According to the article, the desires for keeping Hubble operational, while keeping shuttle astronauts safe seems to be the impeus for suggesting robotic repair of the satellite. The article goes on to discuss 'Robonaut' and 'Ranger robot', two machines which can approximate the capabilities of a space-suited astronaut. I'm wondering if these robots could be used for the ISS assembly/maintenance, minimizing crew EVAs while maximizing assembly time and hopefully reducing costs."

20 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. My question by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:My question by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:My question by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      . . .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

    3. Re:My question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:My question by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Interesting


      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...

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  2. Other uses by hfis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Other uses by Avian+visitor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Other uses by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  3. This is sad. by amitofu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:This is sad. by amitofu · · Score: 1, Interesting
      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.

  4. Re:Addendum by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  5. Re:Robotics are the best option in any case by moxruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  6. Build a replacement module by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  7. robotic exploration, automated by keez · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  8. Re:Begs the question by Agent+Orange · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  9. Why would the robots be automated ? by master_p · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? by angusr · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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,

  11. Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "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.

  12. 2 ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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...

  13. Re:Whats wrong with the shuttle? by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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.