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

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!

Re:Hmmm...

[Nakkel]

It wouldnt even get close before it gets scorched by Hubbles huge magnifying glass.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's a mirror...

Doh :-)

UH huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.


Oh no! Might be moderated!!! God help us all!!!!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"They don't do much that is useful. "

Excuse me? They absorb the huge surplus of engineers that universities pump out every year. It's a form of welfare. Do you really think that we (the human race) need that many engineers? Where are they gonna go? The other big welfare-for-engineers domain is defense.

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.

Re:Extending the technology

[Short Circuit]

Uh, capsules were reusable. You slapped on a new ablative heat shield, among other things, and then it was ready to go.

Re:Extending the technology

[HBI]

If a reliable, reusable capsule were devised, i'm all for it.

I note that such technology hasn't been demonstrated in real life, possibly because of display value of the capsules.

Re:Extending the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the funny mod came from some student still in university, thinking I was making a joke.... Hmmm, I'll let the job market sort that impression out for you. In the meantime, go to the faculty's consellor, he'll tell you a nice lullaby while you hand over the cash.

Re:Extending the technology

[HBI]

The project was mismanaged. You're trying to twist words around to prove out that it wasn't NASA's fault. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the project was mismanaged and ill-advised. The nature of the launch vehicle was dominated by political considerations, not ones of survivability and quality.

The loss of tiles was not a failure. It was a loss of tiles. A failure is when the craft breaks up and the mission fails.

Re:Extending the technology

[prgrmr]

I never said that the Challenger and Columbia failures weren't NASA's fault, or that decisions weren't overly politicized. What I should have made more clear is that you are an idiot if you think the project was "ill-advised". The knowledge we have gained on many fronts has been huge, and in most cases, unobtainable any other way.

The nature of the launch vehicle was dominated by political considerations, not ones of survivability and quality

Source? Attribution? First and foremost, You need to decouple the design of the shuttle from the management of the flight program.

The loss of tiles was not a failure. It was a loss of tiles

Given that the tails are supposed to stay put, this, in engineering terms, would indeed be described as "a failure" of the tile component. Before you decide to pontificate again, get a freakin' clue about the subject at hand first.

Re:Extending the technology

[HBI]

Ad hominem point reached - conversation ends.

You are a NASA shill.

Re:Extending the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the project was very obviously ill-advised. Anyone with a clue realizes this now.

The shuttle's whole reason for being was reducing launch costs. It completely failed to do that -- not only did it not 'earn back' its development cost, it's not competitive with expendables even on just operating costs! In retrospect, the promises made to sell it were clearly deliberate lies. Had the shuttle's performance been known back in the 1970s, the program would have been cancelled almost immediately.

Today, the shuttle has survived for one reason: pork. Eventually pork rots, and now the program is on the way out. I expect it to be cancelled outright soon after the election (and the space station with it.)

The most important lessons from the shuttle are negative ones. Don't trust NASA, don't trust NASA shills, and don't trust starry-eyed space fanatics.

Re:Extending the technology

[prgrmr]

No, the project was very obviously ill-advised. Anyone with a clue realizes this now.

The project was clearly mismanaged, but to say ill-advised is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In retrospect, the promises made to sell it were clearly deliberate lies. Had the shuttle's performance been known back in the 1970s, the program would have been cancelled almost immediately

The shuttle is comprised of a million parts and half of them move. While the shuttle is "reusable" in principle, in practice a significant portion of the shuttle's components are not. This fact was never hidden; it was incredbily underemphasized to the public, but never hidden.

The problem was not the initial design, it was there weren't enough test flights done prior to declaring it "operational". This speaks to the mismanagement of the program by NASA, the underfunding of the program by the Carter an Reagan administrations, and the stupid perceptions that the government gave the public that the shuttle program was going to be as successful as the Apollo program was on an even more comparatively shoestring budget.

I am not, as the parent poster declared, a NASA shill. I am very much an advocate for a continuous human presense in space because I believe that is where the future of our species lies. And while that future is obviously 100 or more years away, we are never going to get there if we do nothing to reach it.

As for not trusting NASA, I also believe that within minutes of the launch, engineers and key management at NASA knew that Columbia was fatally damaged. I think they chose not to disclose that for the simple fact that there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. The primary lesson is that we should have always had two shuttles ready to fly. The fact that we have only the Soyuez to get to and from the ISS says that NASA still hasn't learned that lesson.

Re:Extending the technology

[Short Circuit]

I'd guess that it's probably hard to launch a payload (such as a satellite) in tandem with the capsule. They did it with the LEM during the Apollo missions, though.

Re:Extending the technology

[applemasker]

I couldn't agree more with your statement that the shuttle wasn't flown enough and deemed "operational" too quickly.

In fact, one of the CAIB members wrote a follow up piece called Beyond the Widget: Columbia Accident Lessons Affirmed which, in part, says:

NASA allowed the shuttle to effectively transition from a research and development system to operational status, despite the fact that prior to the Columbia tragedy there had only been 111 successful shuttle flights. In contrast, the Air Force's F/A-22 is programmed for 2,500 flights, nearly 4,600 test hours, before being deemed operational. Although the space shuttle should be considered experimental because of the nature of its mission profiles, it was, due to its commitments and ISS obligations, processed and operated as an operational vehicle. Senior leaders must ensure that a vehicle or program still in the R&D stage is not treated as operational and fielded - an experimental vehicle or program must be treated as such. Although the loss of Columbia cannot be directly tied to the confusion between R&D and operational, it did influence certain decisions that may have changed the fate of the crew; a decision not to pursue imagery eliminated the consideration of an on-orbit repair or rescue mission."

Re:Extending the technology

[HBI]

Yeah, they did. Remember, the payload is just a payload - you can structure it however you will as long as it is at the right end of the rocket. The choice to put a capsule on the tip of the rocket has advantages - you can have an escape tower, for instance.

The Shuttle design had a few key selling points at the time:

• Looks like an airplane - psychologically important.
• Can return items from orbit to the ground safely. Turns out this was some obscure Air Force demand for military sats.
• Reusable - therefore sort of compels additional missions, which was the obvious goal of the professional astronaut corps

The bad part was that it was not as safe as a capsule based design. The assumption was technology would conquer the problems. The assumption was wrong.

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.

[earthstar]

hey!
It isnt jus the lost of life that is a problem! Even greater problem is that the Reputation of NASAis at stake.
People would then only be talking that " The NASA doesnt know to b ring back their people alive... -so would other countries comment!

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.

[JessLeah]

What the fuck is the point of NASA -existing- if they aren't doing human space travel? Commercial entities are already doing unmanned stuff in space (read: satellites out the wazoo) better and cheaper than NASA ever could. NASA's great claim to fame is its achievements with humans in space-- not robots! It's no big deal to put a 'bot in space (unless that 'bot is something spectacular like Hubble), but landing men on the moon is something special...

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]

Simply put: the way that the comercial sector has surpased NASA at unmaned objects in Earth orbit, so will the private sector surpass them in human exploration.

Once the technology is in place, and enough CEOs get it in their heads that it's feasible, you'll start to see off-world resource exploitation. The side-effect of that exploitation, of course, is human exploration of the solar system.

NASA is doomed, end of story.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[l0ungeb0y]

"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"."

Blame Carly!!!!!!
Blame George!!!!
Blame the laywers!!!

And blame the fact that an outsourced droid doesn't have family that can sue if it goes out in a blaze of glory.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

Ah, yes, but to the robot-space-exploration mob, who now after two shuttle disasters are unfortunately winning the fight for politicians' hearts, it is heresy to claim that there are tasks that humans do better than robots. It's the classical cheapskate argument that appeals to the PHBs: instead of sending a human up in space we can send so and so many robots for the same money and no risk of a PR fallout.

And then they wonder why the public finds space exploration boring and don't want to pay for their remote controlled "exploration" either.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

Ah, I was waiting for the cheapskate argument to show up.

Robots do not have human intuition and a desk-jockey running a probe remotely doesn't have the situational awareness required for innovative on-spot decisions.

Read Man on the Moon and tell me that human mind isn't the most valuable instrument in off world exploration.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

Once the technology is in place, and enough CEOs get it in their heads that it's feasible, you'll start to see off-world resource exploitation.

Yes, but at what cost?

Do we really want a corporate death-grip on space exploration and, in time, resource exploitation? Governments we can change by voting, corporate boards we can't (unless we can afford to buy a crapload of stocks in the said corp).

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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". "

Its not mainly becuase its risky, its just very expensive/complicate and very stupid to send a human when a robot can perform the task better.

For 99.99% of all activites on space (except studies on the human) is better done by robots and machines then astronauts. But since Nasa is 50 % PR and 50 % sciences people will keep going up.

(PS. Speaking about mental midgets, the button on your keyboard called "Caps lock" should not be pressed (nor any of the shift key's) while yer typing the subject line.....DS.)

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Saeger]

Exactly what I was going to say, Mr. AC.

The "send a fucking human" sentiment is just that: emotional sentiment. People like to romanticize about other people like them doing StarTrekkie things that they can relate to, and wish to be doing themselves one day (in human form). Most people are naturally bio-chauvinists, especially in the face of increasingly efficient robotics.

--

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got news for you. The most exciting thing humans have ever done in space - the moon missions - was exciting exactly once. By the Apollo 12 mission, lots of people were complaining to the TV networks that their programmes weren't on because of all the boring moon stuff. Apollo 13 raised the figures again, but I don't think you're really calling for an "all disaster, all the time" approach to manned spaceflight, are you?

Modern day manned spaceflight is as boring as you like. "The crew are a mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician" pretty much sums it up. Who cares?

So manned spaceflight is

a) a regular PR disaster
b) boring when it isn't being disastrous
c) scientifically pointless

whereas robotic spaceflight is

a) not a disaster
b) no more boring than manned spaceflight
c) scientifically useful

Robots win!

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

Nice trivialization there: "Emotional sentiment".

Demanding human space exploration has nothing to do with sentiment. 1) There are tasks robots can never accomplish (read my post above), 2) The sooner we master the art and science of getting off this planet, the better our chances for survival as a species are. We must colonize other planets - not tomorrow but NOW!

Sending out robots and probes is nice armchair exploration, but it won't help us when (not if) the next extinction level event hits the Earth.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only in the field of exploration but in medical sciences and new drug development, too.

Yeah - why not take some exciting untested drugs? We could have all the fun of another thalidomide!

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

a) a regular PR disaster b) boring when it isn't being disastrous c) scientifically pointless

And the reason for the boredom couldn't just happen to be that we're still loitering around in LEO?

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the reason for the boredom is that space is pretty much completely useless. We are never going to live on the Moon, or Mars. We are never going to leave the Solar System. Satellites are as exciting as it gets. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise simply doesn't understand how large, or how hostile, the rest of the Universe is.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know what mental midget suggested that we shouldn't send humans into space in the shuttle any more

George.

W.

Bush.

In the same breath, he hyped up a manned Mars mission for "way in the future" (read: once his even-possible 2nd term as President is done for), hoping it would gain him some votes from the technologically savvy. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

Yeah - why not take some exciting untested drugs? We could have all the fun of another thalidomide!

Did I say untested?

Drug testing is pathologically conservative these days and it is keeping potentially effective drugs from the markets and driving prices of the new, approved drugs through the roof. This hurts us much, much more in the long run than anomalies like thalidomide (which is back, by the way).

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

READ the POST. The MOON MISSIONS were too boring for the vast majority of people, after the first one. ANYTHING in space is INCREDIBLY BORING (and also pointless, which is why most people find it boring).

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

We are never going to live on the Moon, or Mars. We are never going to leave the Solar System.

Ok. Let's just lie down and wait for the next extinction level event to wipe us out. No use in sending probes out there either because it's all futile.

The fact that we're still loitering around in the relativel safe LEO accounts for the boredom and scientifical uselessness. It's the same thing as if the Great Explorers hadn't had the courage to venture out to the deep sea and had kept sailing safely within the sight of the coast.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

bio chauvinists huh. I bet you think your clever. what if I was to call you a zombie robot lover? I believe a certain ST:TNG episode titled ``Hero Worship'' is apropo.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

You change your government by voting? I hadnt noticed.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Let's just lie down and wait for the next extinction level event to wipe us out. No use in sending probes out there either because it's all futile.

Correct. I'm glad you've seen sense and abandoned this silly "manned spaceflight" nonsense - there's absolutely nothing we could ever do about a large asteroid, and we can't live on or even get to another planet. People who aren't as sensible as you will also have to admit: we're going to die sometime, and we can't do anything about it.

It's difficult to accept, I know, but it's true, and there's no point making up silly stories like "we could live on MARS!!!1" to try to deny it.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

You change your government by voting? I hadnt noticed.

Maybe you haven't tried hard enough?

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can actually make a living being a human guini pig. The drug companies will pay you thousands of dollars to sit in a controlled environment for a few weeks to months while they test their new phase3 drugs out on you. If you don't might the sideeffects and like lots of time reading and surfing on your laptop then its a great job. I still dont make enough to pay for health insurance though. catch22.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the big problem with drug testing is that it's left too much to the corporations with an interest in having the drug pass the tests, so ineffective or dangerous treatments are being passed. This

a) hurts the patients who get the bad treatments
b) holds back progress towards treatments that really work

So what's urgently needed is more, and more rigorous, drug testing.

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.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[October_30th]

the drug companies will pay you thousands of dollars to sit in a controlled environment for a few weeks to months while they test their new phase3 drugs out on you.

Yep. I know. I made good money as a student by being a human guinea pig.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

holy shit?! is this true? all this time ive been wasting my time by selling my blood for chump change!!!!! i gotta get me sum of that easy m0!

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[SpinyManiac]

I doubt they care that much about losing the crew. It's the currently irreplaceable shuttle they're worried about.

NASA will restart shuttle flights when they're sure they won't go bang.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

They give the extra special drugs to dumb niggers like you.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking racist. What are you doing on /.? This is a blog for smart people.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Moderation abuser]

"For 99.99% of all activites on space (except studies on the human) is better done by robots"

Can you show me the studies which give this conclusion?

Do you know how difficult it is to get a robot to recognise a random object and pick it up in the real world? Ignoring the AI side of it and using real people instead, do you know how difficult it is to set up realistic telepresence, visual, audio, force, touch feedback are all needed.

What is trivial for a human being is bleeding edge technology for a robot. This means that it takes a human a fraction of the time to accomplish a given task where the environment is variable. Robots are only "better" at highly repetetive tasks in a controlled environment.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can you show me the studies which give this conclusion?"

No

"Do you know how difficult it is to get a robot to recognise a random object and pick it up in the real world? "

Who said it had to be an autonmous robot ? If we can put together cars with pre-programmed robots and operate nucelar plants with remote controlled, I'm pretty sure that we can think one up that can service Hubble.

Leave the people on the ground and let machines handle these kind of things, autonom or remote controlled.

We both know that the only reason why man travle in space currently is for PR purpose, there is no need for us up there (yet!).

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Moderation abuser]

"If we can put together cars with pre-programmed robots and operate nucelar plants"

Both of those situations are *highly* controlled environments. Nothing at all like the highly chaotic real world.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are business like any other.
Don't buy their products.

Econ 101.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. We are entering a brave new era of armchair living. If we have to send robots out every time something is 'risky', I might as well send a robot to university to study electrical engineering, since there's absolutely no garantee of ever finding a job in that field, despite what the university indoctrinators tell you.
I'm gonna do it!

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[faxafloi]

One problem with sending humans is that you have to bring them down after a week. A robot can stay up for as long as it takes to get the job done.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing at all like the highly chaotic real world"

I would say space is also *controlled*, not much to "bump" into. You can also pretty much ignore gravity, also a plus.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[CheshireCatCO]

Yep, NASA and O'Keefe have become paranoid by the risks. O'Keefe even brought up the criticism of him that he was "risk-adverse". How did he address it? By beating the fact that 7 astronauts were lost on Columbia into the audience's skulls. (I was there, it was disgusting to watch. It was like the Bush Administration using 9/11 and terrorism to justify pretty much everything it wants to do.) In other words, he told us WHY he was risk-adverse, he didn't argue that he wasn't.

However, I'm predicting as ISS resumes contruction and deadlines loom, they'll be taking ever bigger gambles with the shuttles and the lives of the astronauts to build it. Keep an eye on the details when they return to flight and see how many of the CAIB's recommendations are really followed. O'Keefe promised that every one of them had to be done (which is why, he claims, SM4 is too dangerous), but I'm betting that if we go back and check we'll see that many weren't taken care of. For example, see if they have that autonomous repair kit when they fly to ISS.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if they are copulating vigourously all the way up and copulating all the way down through reentry, and they might not live through it, then when do they find the time to do the repair work? If its a solo mission, can also get very messy.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even after the next dinosaur-killer-level event, Earth will still be more habitable than anywhere else in the solar system.

Pretending we have anywhere close to the technology to colonize the solar system just because NASA could (at enormous expense) send seven people into LEO several times a year is just idiotic. We don't. NASA is just pissing away our tax dollars.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[DerekLyons]

Once the technology is in place, and enough CEOs get it in their heads that it's feasible, you'll start to see off-world resource exploitation.

It's a chicken-and-egg problem. You won't get the technology unless there is profit to be seen, yet you can't see the profit until you know what they technology will cost.

In addition, there is *nothing* in space worth fetching, even if the launch and recovery costs were a tenth or a hundreth of current costs.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[DerekLyons]

Yep, NASA and O'Keefe have become paranoid by the risks. O'Keefe even brought up the criticism of him that he was "risk-adverse". How did he address it? By beating the fact that 7 astronauts were lost on Columbia into the audience's skulls.

Maybe you were not on this planet last February, so I'll catch you up; NASA and Mr O'Keefe were crucified in the media, by Congress, and in public opinion, for not being risk averse.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[CheshireCatCO]

And your point is what? That this somehow automagically makes him not risk adverse now?

No, it explains *why* he got this way, perhaps. But it doesn't address the criticism which amounts, in effect, to saying that he's reacted too far the other way now.

It's important to learn from your mistakes. But make sure that you learn the *right* lessons.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to base the national space program on TV ratings, you're on the wrong planet, pal.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN.

[DerekLyons]

It's important to learn from your mistakes. But make sure that you learn the *right* lessons.

And the lesson here seems to be 'be cautious and risk averse, unless it actually means placing limits on what we can do, then throw caution and common sense to the wind'.

More info here

[Saluton_Mondo]

BBC is also following the story... IMHO if we have the means, then Hubble should be saved.

Who'll go

[chrisjwray]

I'LL DO IT

International Space Station

[turgid]

Now, if only they would make some robots to operate and maintain the International Space Station, they wouldn't have to risk peoples' lives going there for political reasons, and they can wait until they have developed a safer and cheaper launcher and retire the travesty of engineering unholiness that is the Space Shuttle.

Or they could just pay the Russians to launch all their astronauts...

Re:International Space Station

[Andy_R]

Why pay the Russians when you've got Scaled Composites going up there anyway?

Seriously, this sort of thing looks like a better revenue stream than prizes and 'space tourism' for Scaled to be aiming at, long term.

Re:International Space Station

[turgid]

Indeed. :-) I'm really looking forward to the X-Prize being won. People like Rutan make life interesting and fun.

Re:International Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pay the Russians

Are you mad? You don't just stop paying the Russians. They'll sic Igor after us and we'll just end up in a world of hurt. No, it's better to keep paying them.

Re:International Space Station

[jdreed1024]

they can wait until they have developed a safer and cheaper launcher and retire the travesty of engineering unholiness that is the Space Shuttle.

You could have developed a better reusable space vehicle in 1981, could you?

It's not like NASA thinks the shuttle is the only space vehicle we'll ever need. They are working on the shuttle's successor but it takes a lot of time to develop these things. And really, a large number of problems with the shuttle were maintenance issues, not design issues. No matter how great a piece of engineering you have, human error can always break it .

Re:International Space Station

[applemasker]

And really, a large number of problems with the shuttle were maintenance issues, not design issues.

I have to disagree to an extent, although there were a lot of maintenance issues, like the O-Rings that doomed Challenger it's the only manned launch system in history to use solid-fuel boosters (which were necessary because of the weight/cargo requirements from the USAF); consequently, there's basicailly no survivable abort scenario while the solids are firing if one fails or malfunctions before separation.

Re:International Space Station

[turgid]

You could have developed a better reusable space vehicle in 1981, could you?

By 1981 when the shuttle first flew, yes.

Even in the 1970's yes too. The problem with the shuttle is it tries to do too many jobs all at once, and it does them in the most complicated and expensive ways possible.

As for developing new craft, from what I can see projects keep getting cut for political reasons and they try to eek another few years out of the already ancient shuttles.

It's not just the space industry that this sort of thing happens in. Anything politicians get their grubbly little hands on seems to go the same way.

Re:International Space Station

[CrimsonAvenger]

(which were necessary because of the weight/cargo requirements from the USAF)

No. They were necessary due to budget cuts in the Shuttle.

The Shuttle cannot fly at all without the extra boost, but they could have been built just as easily with liquid fuel boosters. But liquid fuel boosters wouldn't have been "reusable" enough to be justified within the context of a "reusable" vehicle.

And a manned booster (as conceived in early shuttle concepts) was more expensive than Congress was willing to consider.

The shuttle unfortunately, was doomed from the start by the parsimonious behaviour of Congress.

The correct answer was to build twenty-thirty of them, fly them once a week (only once in six months per shuttle), and build a real space station (52 flights per year, and ~25t per flight, for five years is a damn big station, compared to what we'll have). Then let the crew repair the station as needed while we start on the Mars/Venus missions, plus follow-on Lunar missions, Lunar base, etc.

Re:International Space Station

[turgid]

The correct answer was to build twenty-thirty of them, fly them once a week (only once in six months per shuttle), and build a real space station (52 flights per year, and ~25t per flight, for five years is a damn big station, compared to what we'll have). Then let the crew repair the station as needed while we start on the Mars/Venus missions, plus follow-on Lunar missions, Lunar base, etc.

And look where we (the human race) are now :-(

Re:International Space Station

[applemasker]

You are right, it was the money, not the Air Force (for once) when it came to the boosters:

"The winged S-IC soon would die as well, for it appeared more costly than the pressure-fed reusable booster which, though it might look and fly like an ugly duckling, was a graceful swan in the realm of budgets, and would survive into the next round of designs. This round would resurrect the solid-propellant booster, and would determine the shape of the Shuttle in the form that would actually be built."

From The Space Shuttle Decision

Still, the solid rockets give me the willies until they're jettisoned.

Re:International Space Station

[Minna Kirai]

You could have developed a better reusable space vehicle in 1981, could you?

She didn't say "resuable space vehicle". The words were "safer and cheaper launcher".

Making it "reusable" is actually a major design flaw that results in a vehicle that is both more expensive and more dangerous. That fact was obvious to engineers in 1979, but politicians (following the lead of Richard Nixon) ignored reality in the hope it would go away.

Before the STS was even built, we already had superior launchers: the Saturn rocket series.

Re:International Space Station

[CrimsonAvenger]

Still, the solid rockets give me the willies until they're jettisoned.

Same here. No man-rated vehicle should use an engine that cannot be shut down at command. Hybrid I could live with, solid is right out.

Re:International Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say 'reusable space vehicle'. He said 'cheaper and safer launcher'.

Expendables with capsules are cheaper and (with proper design) safer than the Shuttle. Amazing, but true. The shuttle has been a horrible ecomomic disaster.

Now, a proper reusable launcher may be even cheaper than that, but that's beside the point.

Re:International Space Station

[DerekLyons]

Or they could just pay the Russians to launch all their astronauts...

Why? Historically the Soyuz (capsule) has the same catastrophic failure rate as the Shuttle, and a *much* higher rate of accidents causing loss of mission or placing the astronauts lives in significant danger.

Re:International Space Station

[SEE]

You could have developed a better reusable space vehicle in 1981, could you?

Why, no. On the other hand, I wouldn't have pretended it was up to routine use as a launch vehicle, instead of being an X project precursor to a real shuttle.

If the program had been operated from that attitude, it's likely the Challenger disaster would have never happened, since O-ring degredation would have been seen as an important discovery related to the mission ("Hey, look at this bit of data the flights have turned up!") instead of a manageable side-issue ("Oh, only a third of the width eroded away, so there's no need to mess up our payload launch schedule by grounding the shuttles.")

Similarly, we wouldn't have built both the space station and Hubble around assumptions of shuttle servicing missions, which means we'd be in less trouble now. And we'd have been developing a sucessor since 1981, with a operational target date of the late 80s or early 90s, which means we'd probably already have a beter one.

Hope this works but...

[Linus Sixpack]

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

Re:Hope this works but...

[acceber]

I hope they are able to service it, but I think they might be more concerned with how its going to fall.

Once the Webb telescope is launched ~2010, the Hubble will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere around that time, depending on the impact of the Sun on the upper atmosphere.
It is expected to burn up on re-entry although the main mirror probably won't which could result in casualties.

To have a controlled landing, NASA were planning to attach a propulsion module to the satellite - but that requires a servicing mission which is of course currently the issue being hotly debated. And it seems NASA doesn't even have the technology to do that, only Russia does.

Re:Hope this works but...

[LordPixie]

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.

If we're going to go through the effort of attaching a rocket to Hubble, we might as well make it crash where it will kill someone. As long as it hits someone no one likes, it's nothing but good PR for NASA !

And you can't say you don't want to see the pinnacle of deep space exploration come crashing into Redmond at seven times the speed of sound...


--LordPixie

Re:Hope this works but...

[Animats]

Once the Webb telescope is launched ~2010, the Hubble will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere around that time, depending on the impact of the Sun on the upper atmosphere.

Well, actually, the Hubble will re-enter whether or not a replacement is launched.

Re:Hope this works but...

[DerekLyons]

To have a controlled landing, NASA were planning to attach a propulsion module to the satellite - but that requires a servicing mission which is of course currently the issue being hotly debated. And it seems NASA doesn't even have the technology to do that, only Russia does.

Actually, Russia doesn't either. Their method of automated docking requires active systems on both units involved. Hubble lacks those active systems.

Heh heh heh

[dmayle]

(Picture Beavis and Butthead)

Heh heh heh... Did he just say robotic servicing? Huh huh...

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.

My Electrolux

[Timesprout]

has already volunteered. He says he wants to make Hubble the cleanest telescope in space.

Another Hubble?

[bhima]

Given that we allready know how to build one, can it be that hard?

Although I still don't see why the James Web scope is so far away...

Re:Another Hubble?

[Xilman]

It's not hard, just expensive.

Paul

Re:Another Hubble?

[hazee]

I don't think there are any shuttles left with holds big enough to store it for launch. I seem to recall that Columbia was the only shuttle that could fit the Hubble inside.

Re:Another Hubble?

[applemasker]

Columbia was used for non-space station missions like Hubble servicing and Spacehab because it was heavier than the other orbiters and couldn't haul as much cargo up to the ISS. Consequently, it never received the airlock mods that would have allowed it to dock with the ISS, so forth. Although I think there were plans to give Columbia the airlock to make it ISS--compatible, there was also talk of grounding her permanently since the other ships were better suited to the ISS construction mission. She was also configured for "extended duration" (16+ days) missions with the modifications allowing her to take on extra consumables (fuel, reactants, so forth) for those missions.

As the newer vechicles came online (Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour), new maufacturing techniques (particularly ones that replaced lots of the "tiles" on low temp areas with "thermal blankets") and the fact that the new craft were not instrumented up the wazoo saved on weight. Ironically, it was Columbia's legacy instrumentation that provided much of the data that was used in the accident investigation, with pressure sensors even noting the subtle impact of the foam on its left wing during ascent. Had it been another Orbiter, the conclusions may have been more speculative.

Astronaut Bob Crippin who commanded her maiden flight in 1981 made a remark at a memorial ceremony to the effect that like a lot of old folks, Columbia was a little heavy in the rear end, but got the job done.

Re:Another Hubble?

[benj_e]

We've already built several, they were called the Keyhole satellites.

Re:Another Hubble?

[bhima]

Sure but they're pointing the wrong way!

nice sig...

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

Alert! Amazon-link. Do not click.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a non-evil link to the book.

NASA Seeks Proposals For Removing Cmdrtaco's Penis

[Anonymous Coward]

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda stepped off the bus and was led into the yard of the Main
State Correctional Institute. He had been given ten years for participating in
a stock fraud. Five with good behavior. Years spent basking in the glow of a
CRT had been hard on him. His body was frail, his skin pallid. He knew he could
never make it through ten years in the general population with his virginity
intact. He had to get into solitary.

As soon as the burly guard unshackled him he made his move. Exhaling a feminine
"hmmph" he weakly slapped the guard. He was quickly taken to the ground,
receiving a swift kick to the ribs before being restrained. As he was dragged
to the solitary confinement cell he felt nothing but relief. "At least in
solitary," he thought "I'll be safe." Unfortunately for Rob he had picked the
wrong guard to mess with.

The next few days were uneventful. The time in his cell he spent evenly between
sleeping, reading a "Perl for Dummies" book he had gotten from the book cart,
and masturbating furiously. His self-flagellation was interrupted on the fourth
day. The burly guard he had attacked earlier stepped into his cell. The gleam
in the guards eye and the mean grin on his face made Rob's pecker quickly
shrivel in his hand. "You fucked with the wrong man when you fucked with
Michael Simms," said the guard. "The inmates here call me The Asshole for a
reason. Now come with me, punk."

The guard led him down the hall to one of several empty shower stalls. He
roughly threw Rob in the stall and locked the door. Rob was petrified. His mind
raced as he imagined the myriad of different tortures that could be in store
for him. His worst fears were confirmed when the guard returned. In his hands
were a short black dress, black stilleto heels, and a curly blonde wig. "Strip
down and put this on, bitch." Rob did as instructed and was pleased to notice
that the dress fit well and the heels gave him a nice slimming effect. The
burly guard admired the drag queen. "The GNAA is gonna love you!"

The guard left the shower stall, only to return minutes later. He opened the
door and led 20 large black men into the stall. "Rob, meet the Gay Nigger
Association of America. GNAA, meet Rob. I'm sure you all will get along fine."
With that the guard slammed the shower door closed and walked away laughing.

The men approached Rob, backing him into a corner. The apparent leader stepped
forward. "No matter what I'm gonna fuck that purdy lil' ass of yours. Now I can
fuck it dry or you can lube it up for me." Rob knew he had no choice. He
kneeled in front of the leader, who began to slap his face with his 10 black
inches. Puss from syphilictic sores quickly covered Rob's cheeks. When the
leader was sufficiently aroused he placed his throbbing cock up to Rob's lips.
As soon as Rob opened his mouth the leader violently shoved his manhood to the
back of Rob's throat and exclaimed "Swallow my shit you cracker bitch!" Rob
gagged as he was violently face fucked.

Just when he was about to pass out the leader pulled out, turned him around and
shoved his cock into Rob's ass. Rob began to scream in agony but his cries were
quickly muffled by one of the other gang member's cocks. They rode him like
that for the better part of an hour. When one man finished another quickly took
his place. Just as Rob was getting used to the throbbing pain in his anus the
men stopped. One man lay down on the floor and Rob was told to get on top of
him and take his dick inside him. Exhausted and humiliated, Rob had no will
left to fight. As soon as he inserted the penis another man came up behind him
and began to force his cock into Rob's already filled anus. Again his screams
of agony were muffled, this time by a smelly black anus.

For another hour he was violated in this way. When the men were finished with
him he couldn't walk and his mouth was filled with dingleberries and ass hairs.
Before they all left the leader had some parting words for Rob: "Thanks for
that sweet piece of ass, punk. We'll see you again tomorrow. Oh by the way, we
all have AIDS." It was going to be a long ten years for Rob.

and where exactly...

[quetzalc0atl]

...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?

Re:and where exactly...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, bush just wants to save the Hubble so he can turn it around and find WMD's!!!!

Nuts

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Nuts

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

I doubt the president knows how to spell "vision".
But I think that sentence mend they need/want more funding.

Re:Nuts

[bruthasj]

Well, he gets the blame for everything, why not the credit?

Re:Nuts

[USAPatriot]

Maybe he was thankful to have a President who doesn't cut their budget like the previous one did. Bush has actually a given NASA a clear vision for the future, and plans to fund it, not just pay lip service to it.

Also, The President is the Commander in Chief, that comes with being elected President. He also served in the National Guard, that is real military experience. There are different ways of serving your country, that is one legitimate path. I find it funny that people whine about Bush's service, but defend Clinton, the draft-dodger who never served in anything. That is insulting.

Re:Nuts

[HeghmoH]

You shouldn't find it insulting. The US has a long, long history of civilian control of the military, and this is why we have never had so much as the tiniest hint of a military coup since the country was founded. The fact that the President, whoever he may be, is commander in chief of the military is a supremely good thing.

Re:Nuts

[bwy]

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.

If Bush had served in the Military as say, a pilot, for 20 years, you'd be saying how he wasn't qualified to do anything BUT be Commander in Chief. You'd say he had no experience running a large organization. Leaders, whether politicians or CEO's, need to have qualities of their own. To be successful, The CEO of Microsoft or Sun doesn't have to have spent 20 years of his life coding, marketing, and doing every little task everyone in the organization does. Most people who've spent 20 years coding wouldn't be able to keep a large organization afloat, quite honestly. This is why a President has a cabinet and a CEO has a CTO, etc.

Make whatever argument you want about Bush, but make it a better one- your attempted argument would be true of just about any President. You argument is honestly so weak I half expect you're just trolling.

BTW, I live in a military town and am surrounded by friends and family who are serving or have served. They do respect Bush. Can't say the same about Clinton. You see, he had this little problem with adultry, while in office, that would have caused anyone serving under him to be excused from service.

Re:Nuts

[richie2000]

I find it funny that people whine about Bush's service, but defend Clinton, the draft-dodger who never served in anything.

In the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number in the lottery (311) and was never called to serve. Geroge W. Bush got a cushy assignment flying National Guard jets in Texas. Or was it Alabama? Whatever, it seems he wasn't sure either. For fun and extra credit, compare Bush and Kerry.

Re:Nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton's Draft Deferrment

In the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve -- however, Clinton made every effort to avoid the draft prior to entering it.

First, Bill Clinton received education deferments while at Georgetown and Oxford (where he helped organize demonstrations against the war). Second, Clinton attempted to avoid the draft for four years by enrolling, but never joining, the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). Clinton had enrolled in the ROTC hoping to avoid military service for four years, but, wanting a future in politics, had a change of heart and entered the draft.

In December 1969, safe from the draft with his high lottery number, Clinton changed his mind about joining the ROTC program and wrote a letter to the director of the ROTC program thanking him "for saving me from the draft" and regretted misleading him by not revealing the extent of his opposition to the war. The letter was leaked by the Pentagon to ABC news early in the 1992 fueled criticism of candidate Clinton's character.

Later in the 1992 campaign, it became known that Clinton's uncle had attempted to get Bill Clinton a Navy Reserve assignment during the Vietnam war. Clinton said he didn't know anything about it to the press on September 3, 1992 but a day later admitted that a former draft board member had informed him of his uncles' attempt several months before.

Re:Nuts

[east coast]

"It's like the joke that Bush is supreme commander of American troops -- a man who has no real military experience."

Many presidents have no military experience. Why is it a big deal about Bush?

"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."

Stating it in this fashion I beg to ask; who are the "our" (as in "our vision)? Bush may not be a scientist but everyone is a visionary in some fashion. And to be blunt, if the "our" you make refrence to is the United States public than certainly Bush deserves the credit. By and far the public doesn't not support a well funded space program. Bush is actually probably losing votes in dumping this cash into NASA.

I've been over this time and time again. The public has no interest in the kind of research that goes into the space program because they do not understand the benifits. Private industry is going to have to be the ones to make real headway here. A tax payer funded space program only causes more problems in the publics eye.

It's pretty unfortunate that the slashdot crowd seems to be more into making this into a political issue and ignoring the science. If Bush's name wasn't mentioned would it make it better? Would it make the science involved any different? Be thankful that NASA still has funding because Joe Taxpayer doesn't give a damn about anything outside of NASCAR, Coors Light and pr0n.

Re:Nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah - I can't imagine anyone respecting Bush.

And leave Clinton out of this - like it or not he a damn good President, the adultery has nothing to do with any of this (And shouldn't have led to the attempted impeachment nor morons like you bitching about it - the man has a private life to and is entitled to it.)

Re:Nuts

[pubjames]

Many presidents have no military experience. Why is it a big deal about Bush?

Because Bush likes to dress up like he's in the military and swagger about.

If Bush's name wasn't mentioned would it make it better?

Yes.

Re:Nuts

[acidrain69]

I find it funny that you are a short-sighted flag waving cheerleader who has to bring clinton up for bush's mistakes. I don't defend clinton. I have a general hatred for politicians, and I wish they had kicked him out of office, BUT; Clinton didn't try to drag the country into unpopular wars on false pretenses. Clinton didn't destroy or highly damage our credability abroad. Clinton isn't a right wing psycho, with a crazy cabinet such as Donald "unknown known unknowns" Rumsfeld, or John "I hate happiness and art, lets clothe the justice statue" Ashcroft. I'd take Clinton over bush any day of the week.

Bush's vision of Nasa's future is a pipe dream. Lets go to Mars, and stop at the moon on the way and use it as a base? Wha exactly are we going to DO on mars? Would it be a triumphant occassion? Sure. Would it really do anything in the long run? Maybe, but I bet not. Going to a planet within our solar system is a LOT different than finding ways to reach beyond that solar system. Don't give me bullshit about testing new technologies, you can send up a rocket and not have to send it to a planet to test engine theories.

Re:Nuts

[east coast]

"If Bush's name wasn't mentioned would it make it better? Yes."

Pretty sad that you can make that statement with a straight face. But it seems more and more that the average /. user is less about science and more about politics.

Mod me as a troll but first prove me wrong. There was a time when this type of political flim flam would have been considered flaimbait instead of those of us who try to squelch it.

Re:Nuts

[patches]

Believe it or not, most military members do respect him. And you can also see that he respects them as well. You want to know about service members not having much respect for thier commander-in-chief, look no further then when the commander-in-chief was a draft dodger, who held anti-American protests on foreign soil.

As far as respect goes, you could see that Clinton had nothing but contempt for our military, and Bush is very respectable. You might not be able to see it if you were never in the military, but Bush will go out of his way to return a salute, however Clinton only did a half-assed job of returning the salute. Also Clinton felt it necesary to fire a bunch of the military. I think it is really sad, but if you assembled all the military personnel, and military hardware that Clinton "Down-sized" you would have assembled like the third or forth largest military in the world.

Re:Nuts

[east coast]

"There was a time when this type of political flim flam would have been considered flaimbait"

Flamebait, damn it! Flamebait!

Re:Nuts

[acidrain69]

What about that whole thing with General 'Buck' Turgidson? Huh? Purity of Essence? The russians and the doomsday machine? HUH?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/ if you just heard a wooshing sound.

Re:Nuts

[Idarubicin]

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.

Why?

It would be absurd to expect any President to have experience in every single aspect of government. This is why a President has a Cabinet, and hires all manner of advisors. The President isn't an MD--how can he make decisions on health policy? The President definitely isn't a PhD--how can he make decisions related to research and development? The President was never a park ranger or a lumberjack (I don't think)--why can he make decisions about national parks and forestry?

George Bush is an embarrassment on any number of levels--but this isn't a fair criticism. Should a majority of Americans be considered unqualified for office because they don't serve in the military?

Re:Nuts

[Minna Kirai]

Believe it or not, most military members do respect him.

They have no choice. In the military, you MUST show respect your commanding officers. They're not allowed to tell what they really think.

look no further then when the commander-in-chief was a draft dodger

You mean like June 03, 2004?

who held anti-American protests on foreign soil.

It's logically difficult to claim that an American is anti-American, unless you've also diagnosed suicidal tendencies. But nevermind that... compare to the current president, who at the same time was sucking millions of dollars from the US military with his dereliction, which went unpunished because his daddy was high in government.

, but Bush will go out of his way to return a salute, however Clinton only did a half-assed job of returning the salute.

Yeah, that great saluting must make the soldiers feel so much better about all the dying and maiming they go through...

Also Clinton felt it necesary to fire a bunch of the military.

That's so untrue, it's really funny. You NEVER fire someone from the military except for dangerous incompetence. So many troops want to leave continuously, that firing them just isn't needed- they'll volunteer to go. (Sorta like Bush volunteered to leave the Guard early, remember?)

But once more, compare against Bush where he's cutting veteran's benefits, and forbidding troops from leaving the military when their time is up.

Re:Nuts

[USAPatriot]

nice dodge there. What does Rumsefeld, Ashcroft or wars have to do with anything here?

I only compared Bush's military record and support of NASA to Clinton's. Both are unquestionably in Bush's favor here. I guess you couldn't answer that so you need to drag out the tired old lines and start other arguments.

But I guess some mod has abused his points to "overrate" me again for expressing an onpopular viewpoint. Slashdot groupthink once again.

Re:Nuts

[drunkenbatman]

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.

Some might, but I think that anyone who has been in the military long enough has had the importance of the military being under civilian control impressed upon them enough that while they may bristle if their advice is unheeded, they understand why it is so.

Re:Nuts

[drunkenbatman]

And leave Clinton out of this - like it or not he a damn good President, the adultery has nothing to do with any of this (And shouldn't have led to the attempted impeachment nor morons like you bitching about it - the man has a private life to and is entitled to it.)

I don't think most people who really, really took issue with his "adultery" were up in arms that it happened, but rather he was boffing interns in the lincoln room. IE, some would say that there is a qualifiable difference in gravity between meeting your mistress at a hotel instead of boffing whores in the bed you share with your wife.

I'm not big into the whole clinton bashing thing, but I will admit that the idea of him sticking cigars into an interns twat in the oval office seems to show a certain... disrespect... for the office he was holding.

Re:Nuts

[patches]

They have no choice. In the military, you MUST show respect your commanding officers. They're not allowed to tell what they really think.

You ar eright, you must show respect. But showing respect and HAVING respect are two different things. I was in Basic Training when CLinton was reelected, the day that announcement was made was not a pretty day, trust me. There was very little respect for Clinton with the military.

You mean like June 03, 2004?
Yeah, way to go. You don't have any real reason to critizise Bush so you call him a draft dodger for joining the National Guard. Hmmm, I seem to recal that the National Guard is a military force. That is funny, so he dodged the military draft by joining the military. I guess that means that my father dodged the Vietnam Draft by joining the Air Force huh?

It's logically difficult to claim that an American is anti-American, unless you've also diagnosed suicidal tendencies. But nevermind that... compare to the current president, who at the same time was sucking millions of dollars from the US military with his dereliction, which went unpunished because his daddy was high in government.
Hmmm, yeah somehow his father is going to get him off the hook for dereliction, (hint: Not showing up for duty at all is usually not called dereliction but AWOL). Right, I guess it is some kind of Right-Wing conspiricy huh? I guess his old commander that a few months back said he remembered seing Bush there is part of this hugh Right-Wing Conspiricy cover up too, huh?

That's so untrue, it's really funny. You NEVER fire someone from the military except for dangerous incompetence. So many troops want to leave continuously, that firing them just isn't needed- they'll volunteer to go. (Sorta like Bush volunteered to leave the Guard early, remember?)

My point was that Clinton downsized the military drastically.

But once more, compare against Bush where he's cutting veteran's benefits, and forbidding troops from leaving the military when their time is up.
Stop Loss Orders happen all the time. I barely missed a stop loss order that happened under Clinton. And also a little hint, a Stop Loss Order wouldn't come from the President, but rather the Chief of Staff's of the different services.

Yeah, that great saluting must make the soldiers feel so much better about all the dying and maiming they go through...
First of all it is a 100% volunteer military, everyone that enters the military knows that there is a chance that they will be ordered to fight for thier country. Secondly, it isn't the saluting, but the fact that you can just tell Bush has respect for the military, where as Clinton didn't.

Re:Nuts

[CrimsonAvenger]

And leave Clinton out of this - like it or not he a damn good President, the adultery has nothing to do with any of this (And shouldn't have led to the attempted impeachment nor morons like you bitching about it - the man has a private life to and is entitled to it.)

Sure, no problem. He's entitled to a private life. He is NOT, however, entitled to lie about it to a judge. And, in case you've never read any Supreme Court rulings on Sexual Harassment, the man's history IS relevant in such cases.

Interestingly, right after the Paula Jones case was thrown out, the Supreme Court made a ruling on another, completely unrelated, harassment case that would have, if it had come two weeks earlier, prevented the Paula Jones case from being tossed on the grounds it was tossed.

Re:Nuts

[ckaminski]

Didn't Hilary teach you anything? It's a LEFT-WING Conspiracy when you're talking about Republicans... sheesh. ;-)

Re:Nuts

[Minna Kirai]

You don't have any real reason to critizise Bush so you call him a draft dodger for joining the National Guard.

No, that's what Bush called it. He has admitted publically that he joined the Guard to avoid the draft.

That is funny, so he dodged the military draft by joining the military.

It's complicated, you'll have to think hard. But being drafted for Vietnam and volunteering to defend Texas are actually very different things. (Bush almost got 500 flight hours, which would've let him rotate to Vietnam... but whoops, he was disqualified from flying!)

Hmmm, yeah somehow his father is going to get him off the hook for dereliction,

Yep, that's exactly it. Military commanders are not willing to risk irritating Congressmen by getting their sons either killed or court martialed. Especially not if that father was a famous veteran. (That's the same reason Al Gore got a noncombat assignment)

Any other pilot who skipped out on his physical to get disqualified from his only useful job would've been at best a dishon.

I guess his old commander that a few months back said he remembered seing Bush there is part of this hugh Right-Wing Conspiricy cover up too, huh?

Or he just doesn't want to admit to failing to control his unit back then. It's more interesting that NO National Guardmen who served with Bush remember him there. It's tough to be on a base for 8 months without making at least one friend- that George must've been really shy!

My point was that Clinton downsized the military drastically.

And who created that downsizing plan, back before Clinton even took office? Rumsfeld...

Secondly, it isn't the saluting, but the fact that you can just tell Bush has respect for the military, where as Clinton didn't.

You can "just tell", huh? Ok, trusting your instincts... but I can just tell that Bush is an idiot, where as Clinton wasn't. Why, just yesterday, Bush claimed that WWII started with a sneak attack on the USA...

And hey, when Bush fired Shinseki for explaining that more troops would be needed to safely hold Iraq- that was really respectful, you think?

Re:Nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

THe Paula Jones case was thrown out because she wasn't damaged in any way, so no sexual harrassment.

And no, his history of consensual sex with other woman was not relevant to a sexual harrassment case. It's no more relevant than a rape victim's sexual history is. (And yes, I know, being a victim of rape is a lot more traumatic than being accused of sexual harrassment. But the illogic is the same in both cases.)

The corallary of "no means no" is "yes means yes". History of consensual sex is utterly irrelvant to harrassment.

The judge never should have allowed Clinton to be deposed about his sexual history--the questions were outside the proper scope of discovery.

Re:Nuts

[CrimsonAvenger]

Ahh, but the Supremes' ruling I spoke of declared that "damage" was unnecessary in determining whether harassment had occurred.

Also, you should know that it has been ruled that sex between smployer/employee or supervisor/worker is presumed to be nonconsensual if either party brings a harassment claim.

Re:NASA Seeks Proposals For Removing Cmdrtaco's Pe

[Charion]

What The Hell...

Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[shuz]

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

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you as a poster and slashdotter have proceeded with caution with the endevour of using the BR tag

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.

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[shuz]

Thanks for the comments. Though you took "(though I don't know the feasability of this and docking with the ISS)" out of context. I was refering to the safety of an ion drive docking with the ISS. Also let me clarify that my suggestion does not include a manned mission to the hubble but rather a robot because I am aware of the orbit and distance of hubble in relation to the ISS. An Ion drive system gives more thrust to fuel consumption then a traditional hydrogen drive. The problem is that an ion drive is slower and I don't know about stopping. But a robot wouldn't care about time. Also a nuclear robot might work. I also notice that your taking the objective that space missions are over and that we may as well just give up on the whole idea of space travel all together. This is an opinion with no scientific information to backup your claims or opinion. Thus I accept that objective as simply an opinion. The waste of booster rockets was more to establish a point of behavior rather then something we should change. It may very well be not feasible to try recovery booster rockets. But I bet there is a technology out there that could replace that dependance on booster rockets. Such as a space elevator to an inspace launch platform for manned ships. As for robots, as we further develop AI strategies, cpu power, and circuitry we will be able to build better robots. There is no need to shutdown an idea or program until there is a genuine need to.

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[shuz]

Why thank you for criticizing my html skills. A more insightfull and possibly more helpfull remark would have been to tell me specifically to us the
BR Tag

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[Minna Kirai]

A more insightfull and possibly more helpfull remark would have been to tell me specifically to us the

It's not HTML skill, but a valid flaw in your posting style. Your messages will be painful for others to read until you learn to insert some form of paragraph-breaks. Either select "Plain Old Text" and just push Enter occasionally, or select "HTML Formatted" and then insert <br> or <p> explicitly.

(And no, I'm not going to explain how to insert a literal "<>" in a comment...)

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[Minna Kirai]

Thus I accept that objective as simply an opinion.

I started to suggest that you find a website in your own language to post to, but I guess it's not helpful to be discouraging. At least you can get a dictionary and contrast "objective" with "objection".

I also notice that your taking the objective that space missions are over and that we may as well just give up on the whole idea of space travel all together.

I never wrote that. If you think I wrote that, then your English comprehension needs improvement. (Still, your English skills are well above what any typical USA student can achieve in a foreign language)

Re:Caution on Robotic Repair missions

[Anonymous Coward]

Shuz,

You always seem to post in one long paragraph, which is sometimes hard to read.

If that's what you are going for ok, to each his own.

But if you just don't like putting in HTML code to format your posts, consider using Extrans (in the dropdown next to the preview button) so you can create paragraphs just by putting in extra CRLFs.

Posting anonymously because not of general interest.

It will be interesting to see.

[howman]

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...

Price of Robot vs new Hubble

[gdesignrr]

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?

Re:Price of Robot vs new Hubble

[The Dobber]

Build another Hubble, you've just compounded the problem. The new Hubble will require servicing, planned and unplanned.

Build/develope a robotic servicing system, you've opened up hundreds of servicing opportunities in space.

Hubble cost about 1.5 billion and has a yearly cost of about 250 million.

Re:Price of Robot vs new Hubble

[kevin7kal]

When it comes to NASA investing money in technology, it's usually a good thing.

You have to remember that most everything with NASA is an experiment. NASA tends to try to take technology to its threshold. That technology then finds other uses in terestrial industry or in later missions.

If NASA invests their money in a robot to fix the Hubble and it costs more than a new hubble. That robot will probably remain in service for other such missions as repairs on the ISS, and other satelites.

Re:Price of Robot vs new Hubble

[applemasker]

Probably not that much since NASA has been working on robotics/telepresence for some time now. Although the NASA's Telerobotics program was shut down in 1997, but the research (at least according to this website) was transferred to other individual programs. I assume one of the flagship programs now is the Robonaut now in development.

Re:Price of Robot vs new Hubble

[CheshireCatCO]

At the AAS meeting, someone said to me that -- having seen the cost estimates on the robotic repair mission -- it would, in fact, be cheaper to build and launch a new HST. We could use the spare parts, including Kodak's backup mirror (the one that DIDN'T have the flaw) and the good gyros. Hell, sending astronauts there would be cheaper than the robotic mission. (A typical shuttle flight costs about $200 million, as I recall.)

On the one had, I applaude NASA's attempt to get the robotic technology to this point. On the other, this is NOT the mission. We have a deadline that has to be met and an instrument that will be lost if we screw it up. It would be better to pick a nontime-critical project with fewer worries about breaking something valuable if something goes wrong. Worse, this is about the most tricky project you could try for a beginning. HST was designed to be serviced by astronauts, that's true. But it doesn't make it easy to do. As I recall, the astronauts had great difficulty manuvering stuff in and out, not to mention getting the door on HST closed afterward. A robot doesn't stand a chance.

Frankly, I don't think O'Keefe is out to save HST. I think he only hopes to de-orbit it. That's the way he prioritized it (rightly) and I suspect that at the end of the summer we're going to hear something like, "Oh, dear. While we can deorbit Hubble, the repair looks too difficult/expensive. Oh, well." Meanwhile, the dogs have been called off of O'Keefe and when he makes the final decision there will be less of a chance to reverse it.

21 ways to be a good liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.
2.) You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders
how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
3.) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-bidding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
Chinese and North Korean communists.
4.) You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5.) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by
soccer moms driving SUV's.
6.) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
7.) You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.
8.) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.
9.) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10.) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
11.) You have to believe that the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
12.) You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.
13.) You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14.) You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Mary Washington, Betsy Ross, the American
Pioneer Women, Eleanor Roosevelt, "Rosey the Riveter," and Rosa Parks.
15.) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.
16.) You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice
person.
17.) You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18.) You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19.) You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20.) You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21.) You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing
conspiracy.

Re:21 ways to be a good liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

17.) You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

You need to insert "Other than Europe" in here somewhere. The rest is pretty accurate though. LOL KTHXbye.

Re:21 ways to be a good liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO!! Great post!

does anyone else see this

[millahtime]

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?

Re:does anyone else see this

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing John Conner managed to stop was his own death.

Dexterity RULES!

[quarkscat]

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.

Re:Dexterity RULES!

[WalksOnDirt]

"And considering the big mess made by US Skylab
when it came down, a gentle push toward the sun
is the more likely outcome."

A gentle push toward the sun just gets you a more elliptical orbit. Luna may be the most reachable permanent dumping place, but even that takes way more delta-v than we're willing to pay for.

If we can't repair Hubble, I think we should move it to a higher orbit, where it would be stable for a century or more, rather than de-orbiting it to a safe destruction now.

My bet is that by that time it will be such a historical icon that it will be brought back safely for display.

We are all individuals?

[TapeCutter]

"I'm not!"

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.

Re:JUST SEND A FUCKING HUMAN (Plan B)

[Anonymous Coward]

JUST SEND THE FUCKING MONKEY.

I nominate ...

[Scurrilous Knave]

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.

Bush and Lincoln

[amightywind]

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.

Re:Bush and Lincoln

[pubjames]

President Bush's war on terror has been nothing short of heroic.

What a low bar you have to jump these days to become a hero. Sad.

There were some youths in my street last week writing obscenities on a wall. I phoned the police. According to your criteria for a hero, that makes me one.

Re:Bush and Lincoln

[Short Circuit]

Lincoln had the good sense to find someone already in the military and put him in charge. Even if the job did get assigned to a few incompetants before Grant got the position.

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:Hey, forgetting something?

[techcntr]

> 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.

All NASA comms for this misison will go through TDRS. The major delay for TDRS comms isn't the radio waves, it's the processing on each end. Through TDRS, the communications delay is on the order of 2-3 seconds.

> I mean, it's not nearly as nifty, but it's also pretty fool-proof compared to sending up an AI.

Actually if you read closely O'Keefe specifically says they aren't looking at autonomous approaches (except for the docking). During HST servicing everything is going to be teleoperated. There's no way HST could be serviced autonomously, the technology isn't there yet.

Re:Hey, forgetting something?

[fikx]

Um...that's what these proposals are for: tele-robotic repair, not automated. These are RC beasts (one of which is already built, just needs adapted to space). it's pretty clear in all the articles I read.

Re:Hey, forgetting something?

[Jonsey]

Hadn't been keeping close enough track to the articles (but, hey, what else is new?). It's good to know that the obvious doesn't always escape engineers :p

Seriously though, having taken the chance to actually read the article, I see what you meant. It is kinda neat that they'll automate the docking fully, I can understand why, but that's still pretty cool. : )

it had to be done..

[gphinch]

"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."

Fine...

[Short Circuit]

Fine, just so long as we don't get a Post Terran Minerals Corporation.

dr. strangelove

[johnjay]

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.

Outsource it to India

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, that's what all the corporations are doing anyway. Why should your job be more secure if you're working for NASA?

A mission from scratch in three years?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Opportunity to prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:JUST SEND A HUMAN.

[bcattwoo]

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.

Robotic Servicing?

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys are all over it (non-work-safe link, duh).

The dog ate my proposal!

[SB9876]

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?

NASA already tried and failed at this

[Animats]

NASA threw $300 million at the Flight Telerobotic Servicer project in the 1990s. That project had roughtly the same spec this one does - a 4-year project to develop a remotely controlled robot for satellite maintenance.

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.

Robot malfunctions and astronauts are sent ...

[Ra5pu7in]

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.

What about Chimps

[SkipChaser]

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.

Re:What about Chimps

[BlueEyes_Austin]

"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." NOT a fact. First, Challenger is not "entombed in concrete." The remains are stored in a sealed missile silo Second, NASA has made clear that this was A MISTAKE and that the remains of Columbia will NOT be similarly sealed.

Re:JUST SEND A HUMAN.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Robotic mission just to deorbit is a very dumb ide

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a robot mission just for the sake of deorbiting the HST would be a horrible waste of money.

The mission would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the expected number of lives saved would be around .001.

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.

Seems like...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Robotic Servicing" wouldn't be a good choice of phrases, but so far no takers.

Re:JUST SEND A HUMAN.

[ckaminski]

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.

More stuff 'bout NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Relevant website

[Anonymous Coward]

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.