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

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

[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...

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.

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?

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.

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: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,