Slashdot Mirror
NASA Seeks Proposals For Hubble Robotic Servicing
hcg50a writes "SpaceFlight Now has an article about NASA asking for proposals to mount a robotic mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Such a Hubble-servicing mission would occur toward the end of calendar year 2007. If you like politics mixed with your spaceflight, you can read NASA Administrator O'Keefe's speech in which the announcement was made."
Would be funny if some of the Battlebot teams got together and made a proposal. The robotic module gets closer and closer....then suddenly, a huge blade whips out and slices the Hubble in half! PWN3D!!!
The great part of this plan is that it gives NASA a specific goal for implementing robotic repair/servicing. They get to use the project as a testing ground for new technologies, some of which will surely make their way into other future missions. Costs will go down for "routine" orbital missions that can be automated, allowing us to do more in near space and saving the money for other missions demanding astronauts.
This is getting fucking RIDICULOUS. The astronauts who go up into space do so with full knowledge of the fact that they might not return alive. Yet despite the danger, there are many who are willing to risk their necks. Just send a fucking shuttle! I'd like to know what mental midget suggested that we shouldn't send humans into space in the shuttle any more, since it's "risky". (And was this individual formerly an insurance adjuster, a lawyer, or some other sort of simple-minded human scum?)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
BBC is also following the story... IMHO if we have the means, then Hubble should be saved.
Batman: "Slake your thirst. You'll have worse than a parched sensation when we're through with you!"
Or they could just pay the Russians to launch all their astronauts...
Stick Men
Another article I read mentioned decomissioning a lot. NASA needs to attach some sort of engine to hubble to be able to crash it safely where it wont kill anyone.
I hope they are able to service it, but I think they might be more concerned with how its going to fall.
ls
(Picture Beavis and Butthead)
Heh heh heh... Did he just say robotic servicing? Huh huh...
They definetly should continue to maintain hubble, the amazing pictures it sends back are well worth it. If a robot can do it just as well as a human then there is no point in risking astronauts lives for no reason. If however it can't be then I think it is worth a small risk to send a few astronauts up there. If NASA are too concerned with risks and tiny chances of things going wrong then they will never be able to do anything worthwhile with people in space.
has already volunteered. He says he wants to make Hubble the cleanest telescope in space.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Although I still don't see why the James Web scope is so far away...
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Here is a non-evil link to the book.
...are the politics in O'keefe's speech? I didn't see any, save the following:
"Finally, NASA's space astronomy activities are integral to the President's vision of extending humanity's exploration and discovery horizons. As we pursue this vision, we will continue to build space-based telescopes to expand our capabilities."
does that make it political?
Finally, NASA's space astronomy activities are integral to the President's vision of extending humanity's exploration and discovery horizons.
I hate how everything has to be stated as if it was Bush's ideas and vision that pushes the country. Why couldn't he say "NASA's space astronomy activities are integral to our vision of extending humanity's exploration and discovery horizons." Bush is neither scientist nor visionary.
It's like the joke that Bush is supreme commander of American troops -- a man who has no real military experience. If I was in the armed services I would find that insulting.
I believe we as a nation and world you proceed with caution with the endevour of Robotics servicing. Eventually I can see automated stations to be an in space launch bed for satelites as well as increasing human missions. First I feel we need to develop robotic repair vehicles slowly. Create a vehicle send it up but also send up the human factor as well. I would suggest testing this robotic repair vehicle on a "safe" satelite that needs maintanence that a normal human shuttle mission would do. Give us the option to both closely monitor the first robotic repair vehicle in space as well as keep the option to retrieve and or repair the satelite with a human shuttle. The design of this robotic vehicle should be one that can use the international space station as a docking platform. Make it reusable with either a cheap hydrogen/oxygen drive or put in an ion drive(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS). Oddly enough we are a throw away society, we still use booster rockets that are disposible.(I know that part of the booster rocket system is reusable but I don't remember which of the top of my head. is it the small ones?) Lets work together with the EU, Russia, China, and the Japanese and develop this next space technology, a permanent space repair robot. Please NASA do not make this a one use robot, I bet over time it would cost more money. Thank you
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
The article leaves the possibilitys open for unmanned launch and repair/upgrade systems to be developed. I can see some of the teams from the autonomous challange, as covered to death here on /. in recent months, being quite interested in developing this technology.
I am all for sending people into space as being there is part of the point, but I am very interested in the technology that will come out of these proposals over the next 20 years.
If we look at some of the things that have made their way into our homes thanks to r+d from NASA, I can see a time when not only is may car built a la Minority report Lexus, but it can be repaired just as easily in the same fashion.
Here, in Japan, we have these great car washes that you park your car under and they move from the front to the back cleaning and then drying. I don't know if they are around the US, I have not seen any in Canada, but it would be nice , when my car breaks down, or that crazy useless check engine light comes on, if I can just pull into one of these things, pop in my warranty card, and have the machine fix whatever is wrong with it.
granted lots of hard working people, as we see the workforce right now, would lose their jobs if it were to all of a sudden come into being, but given time and reclasification of jobs, I think that in the same way typesetters became typests become data entry clerks, assembly line workers will become robotic assembly line technitions.
On another note... I started to fully understand 'whither' about three quarters of the way through his speech...
flinging poop since 1969
While a custom robot designed to repair the Hubble sounds cool, how much is something like that really going to cost, compared to ... say... a new Hubble?
Does anyone else notice maybe a start to "skynet"
The robots would have to be decently smart to take care of things. Then, if this works we have them do all our space works. The moon (needs to be even smarter) and mars (they just have to be straight up AI). Is this the beginning? And if so, where the hell is john conner at to stop this?
Evolution or ID?
Hubble Space Telescope was designed in the
1970's, using 1970's technology. Prior
manned servicing missions to HST required
months of training in order to obtain a
successful mission. Specialized tools and
developed dexterity skills were required
in order to remove equipment (in order to
access other equipment). The complex
motions, including disconnecting electrical
couplings strickly by feel (through a space
glove no less) are not likely to be attained
by a robot. Precision motions by robots
require point of origin markers (optical or
mechanical) that were never included in
the design of the Hubble Telescope.
One of the largest problems with Hubble
is the longevity of it's gyroscopes, which
have been failing more rapidly than their
design parameters. Unforunately, the only
likely robotic mission to HST will be to
attach auxillary rockets for de-orbiting it.
And considering the big mess made by US Skylab
when it came down, a gentle push toward the sun
is the more likely outcome.
The replacement space telescope is NOT a
true functional equivalent, as it operates
in the IR spectrum. The beautiful and
mysterious visible light images that
Hubble Space Telescope made available to
humanity will not be part of this next
generation instrument. NASA must resort
to the riskly venture of a manned mission
to service HST if it is to continue
operations.
"I'm not!"
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
People die driving race cars each year to what end? Dale Earnhart is practially a saint. We're willing to pour our hearts out and spend billions each year to shove more people into the breach in order to turn left for four hours. So manned space flight is hardly the most risky endeavor we undertake with arguably more return. Where does NASCAR or CART get us? Cars that can do even more speed than is legally allowed? No - they push the envelope of car technology. Ditto all spaceflight. Swap out the Tallageda with RC cars and tell me how many people will show up... Race car drivers are brave and passionate and accept the risks. Ditto astronauts.
It's not about ratings. What the networks think about space missions is moot - there's NASA TV, so the networks are out of the picture. 90% of what NSF and NIH funds is boring and tedious to the general public - but there are people alive today because of it.
As far as robotics is concerned, it's be nice to know what they're aiming for - remember the Solar Max and both Hubble missions? Lots of human decision making involved, improvisation and creativity - if they're talking telerobotics (as in telerobotic surgery) then they've got a prayer. But if anyone has in their mind that they're going to line up autonomous robots to give the Hubble a new lease, then they need to go back to the DARPA challenge and remember that Apollo 11 would have been just another crater on the moon with a robot at the helm instead of human pilots who could avert the near disaster. Robots are better at some things - humans are better at some things. Use them both appropriately, drop the prejudices and accept the risks of exploration.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I saw that freakin' gecko doing the robot on TV the other day. Little bastid seems to be everywhere these days, let him fix the Hubble.
It's like the joke that Bush is supreme commander of American troops -- a man who has no real military experience. If I was in the armed services I would find that insulting.
Mr. Bush did not serve on active duty, but 3+ years as a successful wartime president counts for a lot. If you had lived during his time I am sure you would have criticized Lincoln for the same thing. The Commander-In-Chief in the U.S. is a civilian by design. President Bush's war on terror has been nothing short of heroic.
an ill wind that blows no good
Latency to LEO isn't more than about 300ms (I remember that Sattelite internet access has at least a 250ms latency, and IIRC the sats for that are higher up.
Regardless, while playing around with that much latency isn't fun, it's also not too hard to beam signals up that far... Why don't we just use a "robot" in the battle-bot sense for this, and have an R/C fixer go up there?
I mean, it's not nearly as nifty, but it's also pretty fool-proof compared to sending up an AI. Maybe a mix approach would work, like our Mars Rovers, or maybe after the gyros & whatnot are fixed on hubble, we let it go AI on other less-critical repairs?
Sound logical to anyone else?
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you."
in bed.
Fine, just so long as we don't get a Post Terran Minerals Corporation.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I did just hear a wooshing sound; I don't understand how Dr. Strangelove is a counter-example to HegimoH's observation. The role of the president in that movie seems to underscore his point: Gen. Buck Turgidson, and Gen. Jack D. Ripper were psycopaths, and the president was the only one able to stop them. That movie, by the way, gets better every time I see it.
I don't think so. We haven't done that for a very long time.
I'm not sure we've ever done that, frankly.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This is a very important opportunity to demonstrate robotic servicing. Satellite lifetimes are usually limited by running out of fuel. Many satellites are in geostationary orbit where the shuttle cannot reach them for servicing. Some satellites are launched into the wrong orbits or fail in simple ways. The current approach to these problems is to replace the satellite. Many of them cost hundreds of millions of dollars to replace. A space based satellite servicing craft could refuel, repair, upgrade, and move satellites to different orbits for a lower cost than replacing them. This concept reduces the cost and risk for operating in space - the cost of a new robotic system is recouped in the near future through the lower cost of new satellite development and the longer lifetime of new sats. Why hasn't this been done before? Because no one has demonstrated it. Hubble is the perfect opportunity.
If it is planet-wide extinction events that you are worried about, I think the money would be better spent developing ways to prevent those events from happening in the first place. Knowing that a few thousand people would carry on the human race in a colony on Mars would probably bring little solace to the 6+ billion people left to die on Earth when the next asteroid hits. If we can figure out a way to get a self-sustaining colony on another planet, we should be able to figure out a way to divert an incoming asteroid or comet.
These guys are all over it (non-work-safe link, duh).
Did anyone else notice the due date for proposals? It's 6 weeks from now! Does that strike anyone else as being a bit.. hurried? The way things in aerospace usually go, it takes companies 6 weeks just to pick out what kind of slick, glossy folder they want to put the proposal in.
So is NASA trying to follow the Scaled Composites lead of minimizing paperwork (unlikely, IMO, it's NASA after all) or do they know somethng about the urgency of getting this mission done that we don't?
Total failure. Not even a ground-based prototype. Lots of studies and papers on components, but no real results. It's so NASA.
The project manager on that project is still on the NASA payroll. That, too, is so NASA.
Unless the problems with the Hubble telescope are 100% known, we risk sending a robot up that can only fix some things and won't be able to handle unpredicted problems (isn't that what all the problems we've had with Hubble have been, since anything that was predicted would have been handled ahead of time).
I think our scenario will end up being two or three expensive robot missions, a robot malfunctioning and damaging Hubble in some way, and a human mission finally being sent to clean up the mess.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
After they were the first Americans in space.
We could bioengineer a Super Chimp.
Smart enough to fix the telescope and uses less food, water and oxygen than humans.
The capsules could be smaller. Maybe launched on converted MX missles.
Of course the Chimp gets on to us (discovers there is no reentry system) and escapes to breed a race of talking apes that take over the world..... Oh well forget it.
Maybe the robots would be better.
Not really, look at what happens in Terminator....
Humans are a better choice after all considering the Dr. Frankenstein effect.
FACT: NASA entombed in chaf laden concrete the pieces of the Challenger and wants to do the same with Columbia. They claim it is out of respect but the result is the pieces can be used for research.
OPINION: If you look back you'll probably discover we're probably about right on the curve for failures of new concept aircraft and spacecraft. Next failure should be about STS257.
RUMOR PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT: Columbia was destroyed by an environmental regulation...the foam that damaged the wings leading edge, was made weaker and didn't stick as well because the formula and propellant was changed to be more environmentally friendly.
Supra et Ultra
Of course, even after that asteroid hits, Earth is *still* more habitable than Mars. The temperature is better, there's free oxygen in the air (which is at a comfortable 1 atmosphere, so no pressure vessels or space suits are needed), there's lots of water, and (after a few years at most) you can grow plants in the open.
The dinosaurs didn't die because they didn't have a space program. They died because they had brains the size of walnuts.
Actually, a robot mission just for the sake of deorbiting the HST would be a horrible waste of money.
.001.
The mission would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the expected number of lives saved would be around
It's simply bad policy to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to save a life. Completely cost ineffective. Orders of magnitude more lives could be saved by spending that money in other ways.
"Robotic Servicing" wouldn't be a good choice of phrases, but so far no takers.
And it's hard to keep 30 tons of body fed when all you have to graze on is grass (at best) fungus (at second best) mushrooms and the occasional mouse or other critter.
Which is why mammals dominate the earth today.
To the person who suggested that manned spaceflight is what NASA is all about:
The reality is that robotic exploration is NASA's crown jewel. No one else has the capability and knowledge for interplanetary exploration as NASA does.
The Russians set most of the manned spaceflight milestones and still own low-Earth orbit today.
The logical path for NASA is to subcontract low-earth orbit missions (including Hubble service) to Russia, and focus on developing the Space Elevator.
-meteors
http://live7.truelook.com/face/newface.jsp?name=/n asa/goddard&func=live&overlay=default&width=640&he ight=480
Pan around the picture a bit and have a look. They've got a robot up on the gantry and have been using it over the past few weeks to test various Hubble servicing tasks. Very do'able, I've heard.
ROTFLMAO!! Great post!