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."

10 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. 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: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.

  3. 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?
  4. To Infinity -- And Beyond! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Funny
    maximizing [ISS] assembly time and hopefully reducing costs
    How about if we stop sending rockets and shuttles to the ISS altogether? That would drive costs to zero and drive assembly time to infinity, exceeding both of your stated goals.
    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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.
  9. 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.