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."

Comments

Extending the technology

[Lord Grey]

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.

Re:Extending the technology

[HBI]

You'd be hard pressed to find a mission that demands an astronaut on anything that we reasonably can do in the next 10 years.

I like space flight and the whole prospect of same, but think like a bean counter for a moment. This is fluff.

If I _weren't_ interested in space flight, i'd recommend axing all but a tiny bit of NASA's budget. They don't do much that is useful. Chop out the whole manned space program at the very least. They invested their dollars in a very fragile spacecraft combining all the worst elements of a solid-fueled and liquid fueled rocket. Moreover they took on all the limitations of the airplane. 5 operational craft were constructed, two have been lost. The suggestion is that each craft has a lifespan on the order of 25 flights. All failures to date have been catastrophic, with 7 fatalities apiece.

This is really hard to justify particularly considering that at least Atlantis and Discovery are close to EOL based upon our past experience. Two more disasters to look forward to. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the Shuttle was a flawed design and should not have been built.

While NASA may fly a Shuttle again, the program will never be back 'on track'. I think this is what O'Keefe keeps telling us. The US might wish to keep the *possibility* of using a Shuttle available for military reasons or as an ISS rescue, the program is fundamentally dead. The Shuttle will be retired when some other manned vehicle is made available in the mid-2010s. Hopefully a non-reusable, proven capsule design.

Re:Extending the technology

[prgrmr]

You'd be hard pressed to find a mission that demands an astronaut on anything that we reasonably can do in the next 10 years

If you truly believe that, then you have completely missed the point of going to space at all.

Moreover they took on all the limitations of the airplane. 5 operational craft were constructed, two have been lost. The suggestion is that each craft has a lifespan on the order of 25 flights. All failures to date have been catastrophic, with 7 fatalities apiece.

One of the major problems of the space shuttle was that they couldn't fly it enough. How many test flights do you think a fighter plane gets before it goes into production? How many test flights of the shuttle were there? 3 or 4?

Furthermore, for you to say that all of the failures have been "catastrophic" is blatantly incorrect. They had problems with the tiles from day one that were not catastrophic. They had electrical problems, engine problems of various types and other equipment problems. There have been very few flights that have not had at least one failure of one component or piece of equipment. It's the nature of mechanical and electrical systems to fail at some point and that is to be expected, anticipated, and planned for. NASA does this, for the very most part. The catastrophic failures to date have been with those components for which there were not backups and no failsafe alternatives. That is the part they need to better identify: to overcome the engineering bias that produces blindspots in our perception of what can and cannot reasonably be conisdered a potential single point of failure.

JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[JessLeah]

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?)

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[old man of the c]

NASA is obviously scared to death of another Challenger / Columbia tragedy. They came out looking totally inept in both of those incidents. I believe they fear they would lose all support from the public and (arguably more important) congress if more astronauts are lost. I'm not saying that is the right attitude. It's kind of like saying "I'm afraid of being killed in an automobile accident, so I am going to stop driving."

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

I fully agree.

Everybody has become so obsessed with safety that it's starting to hinder our progress as a species. Not only in the field of exploration but in medical sciences and new drug development, too.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple fact that people cost more is why robots are a better solution. Sending up humans in a life sustaining environment (shuttle) requires a lot of preparation and money with the danger concerns aside. Sending up a one way robot on a rocket is muchos cheaper by many magnitudes.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[krymsin01]

Hey, it worked for sea exploration. Columbus was not acting under the authority of Spain, mearly using their money for his own endevor.

You could always incorporate with like minded individuals if you have some goals that you think no one else is paying enough attention.

Robots or humans?

[Zarks]

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.

actually... and let's define terms

[jpellino]

Space flight right now is about as dangerous as it would be expected to be. In terms of experimental flight, the disaster rate is what experimental pilots are used to. And yes, all astronauts know the risks and have accepted them. I'd go tomorrow.

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.

Hey, forgetting something?

[Jonsey]

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?

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[Minna Kirai]

I would suggest testing this robotic repair vehicle on a "safe" satelite that needs maintanence that a normal human shuttle mission would do.

Uh, there is no such thing as a "normal shuttle mission" anymore. Shuttle missions are almost completely over. Maybe a few more trips to the ISS, but you will never again see a shuttle sent to service a satellite. (Servicing satellites is nearly worthless anyhow. The Hubble is the only satellite in history with a replacement cost greater than a traditional shuttle mission)

(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS)

The feasibility is: None. The ISS is just too far away from the Hubble. You can't reasonably visit them both in a single trip (without a huge, huge expense of carrying extra fuel "just in case").

There's just no reason to think about bringing a robot to the ISS. If the robot fails somehow, tough. Let it drift or fall or whatever, it's no matter to us. The price of the robot body itself is trivial next to the retrieval cost.

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?)

It's not "Oddly", it's a small island of sanity in a wasteful space program. The shuttle's boosters are disposable because it's just cheaper that way. For some things, refilling and refurbishing is more expensive (and far more risky) than building a new one. If more of the shuttle had been disposable, then the whole 30-year project budget would've been much less. (Except that then it wouldn't be called a "shuttle", because shuttles are by definition reused)

Please NASA do not make this a one use robot, I bet over time it would cost more money.

You bet wrong. The expensive thing about a robot isn't building the actual machine- those guys from Monster Garage could handle that in a few weeks. The real hard work is the design, for both hardware and "AI" software.