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."
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
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.
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...
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?
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? What's next, a computer that can beat a human in chess?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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.
MY SECRET DIARIES
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.
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.
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.
Why send a machine to do a human's work? Or was it the other way around? ;)
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?
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.
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?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
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.
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.
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.
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.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Natural selection is working in space against astronauts and for robots.
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.
I'm shocked and stunned. You'd never catch me doing that.
KFG
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
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.
I thought NATO was a military alliance, not a trade agreement.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Wouldn't it make more sense to minimise assembly time so that it gets done faster?
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.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Too lazy to create a sig...
"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.
...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.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
I am not a robot engineer, but this look like state-of-the-art to me...
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...
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.
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.
HTTP/1.1 400
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.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I dunno about you buddy, but in my life, quick releases only pleasure the provider, not the bedtime client ;)
http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
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.
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)
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.
-- Have you ever noticed that at trade shows, Microsoft is always the company that is handing out stress balls?
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...
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.
--
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
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?
Time lag wouldn't be a problem, just train the operators by keeping them drunk!
sorry!
______________
Huh?
An R2 unit is the obvious solution.
It seems the Cadre's plans are proceeding apace. Bright Sky's ahead, Tova.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.
Sigh, another high-paying professional job bites the dust.
T Stockman
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.
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.
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
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
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.
Why on earth would you want to maximize assembly time? ;)
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
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.
This sig no verb.
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.
Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
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.